edit_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that worldgen/server config edits cause a backup and world reset by default, which is a significant side effect. It does not cover all edge cases, but it discloses the most important mutation consequence.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important side-effect caveat is stated immediately after.

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 description covers the main side effect and the timing of the change taking effect. However, it omits guidance about the value format, path scope, return behavior, and when to use related sibling tools, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 80%, so the schema already documents key and path semantics. The description adds meaning around the default reset behavior, which clarifies resetWorld, but it does not explain the value parameter or the world parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Change') and a clear resource ('a key in a config file'), and the dotted-path detail in the schema reinforces the operation. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like read_config and list_configs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as read_config, list_configs, or apply_world. The reset behavior is mentioned, but there is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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