ap_set_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly signals mutation, narrows the writable surface, and discloses the non-obvious layer_res behavior that existing layers are not resized. It does not mention persistence or restart requirements, but it covers the most likely misuse.

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 with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the writable-fields restriction follows, and the layer_res caveat is last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The schema documents every parameter, so the description only needs to supply scope and caveats, which it does well. It could add whether changed settings persist or require a restart, but an agent can invoke it correctly with the information given.

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 input schema already describes all 14 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds one behavioral clarification about layer_res beyond what the schema states, which is helpful but marginal.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Change application preferences,' and scopes it to ArmorPaint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like ap_get_config.

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?

'Change application preferences' gives a clear when-to-use context. The caveat that only listed fields are writable also sets a hard boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as ap_get_config for reading values.

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