agileconfig_update_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses that modifications are not effective until re-published, which is critical behavioral information. It doesn't cover all traits (e.g., reversibility, permissions), but for a mutation tool, the re-publish note is a key disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core action, the second provides essential post-operation context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 6 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and the critical re-publish requirement. Could mention id requirement, but schema already marks it required. Slightly more detail on return values would be beneficial but not necessary.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'value, group, or description' but those are already documented in the schema properties.

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 states it modifies existing config item's value, group, or description. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_config' (creates new) and 'publish_config' (publishes). The verb '修改' (modify) and resource '已有配置项' (existing config item) are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: modification requires re-publishing to take effect, implying use before publishing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool set provides differentiation. The caveat about re-publishing is helpful guidance.

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