kirikiri_kagex_apply_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states 'Update' but does not reveal whether files are overwritten, what happens to existing values, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices needed detail. The vague term 'highlights' and lack of parameter context make it under-specified; however, there is no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), this description is far from complete. It omits return behavior, side effects, and any meaningful parameter structure, leaving an agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 14 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Nested objects like config_updates and appconfig_updates are completely unexplained, so an agent cannot know what structure or values to provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action (Update) and the resource (Config.tjs / AppConfig.tjs) on a KAGeXpress project, which helps distinguish it from init/locate siblings. However, the term 'highlights' is vague and doesn't precisely specify what gets updated, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only mentions 'on an existing KAGeXpress project,' which implies a prerequisite but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also fails to mention alternatives like kagconfig_set or other config-related sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.