update_config

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the critical async behavior: changes are persisted to the database and applied by the scheduler later, and this tool cannot confirm the change is live. It also adds the patch semantics (omitted fields keep their value), the rejection of no-ops, and the template-rename prohibition — exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the alternative, then runtime semantics — good ordering with no filler. The semicolon-chained clauses and the odd phrasing "from text" make it slightly denser than necessary, but every sentence carries information.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers persistence, deferred application, scoping and failure modes well. The one gap is not explaining how the identity parameters interact with the new_* parameters, which matters for correct invocation of a rename/move.

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 each field already documents "omit to keep", so the description's identical phrasing adds little. It never explains the important distinction between the identity triple (type/name/service) and the mutation triple (new_name/new_type/new_service), which is the main place an agent could misconstruct a rename or move.

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?

"Edit, rename or move a snippet" states specific verbs and the exact resource, and the sibling update_config_from_file is named as the alternative, so an agent can discriminate it from the other ~30 tools without opening a 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 file-based edits to update_config_from_file and states eligibility ("UI/API-managed or template-derived only; templates cannot be renamed") plus the no-op rejection rule. It stops short of enumerating the inverse case (e.g., when to prefer create_config over renaming), so it is clear context rather than complete when/when-not guidance.

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