global_config_update

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing that other settings are preserved (merge, not replace), that changes persist to the database, and that the scheduler applies them later so liveness cannot be confirmed. That async caveat is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey. Not a 5 because prerequisite permissions/validation behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three compact clauses: what it does, which sibling to prefer, and the persistence/async caveat. Front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a destructive, async-applied config mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, merge behavior, persistence, and the delayed-application limitation. Minor gap: no statement about permissions or validation failures on bad keys.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'config' parameter is documented as flexible key-value pairs, so the schema already carries the weight. The description adds merge semantics ('other settings are kept'), which is genuinely useful, but adds no key naming or value-format guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set global settings from key-value pairs') and immediately distinguishes scope from the sibling 'update_service for one service'. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to update_service when the change is scoped to a single service, which is the most likely confusion point among the large sibling set. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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