update_config_from_file

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses that changes are saved to the database and applied later by the scheduler, and that the tool cannot confirm the change is live. It also warns that omitting new_name causes the file stem to rename the snippet, which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before calling.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the payload shape, rename caveat, scope restrictions, and persistence semantics. The parenthetical and semicolon-heavy phrasing is compact but slightly terse, though every clause carries useful 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what gets replaced, rename side effects, template restrictions, persistence timing, and the inability to confirm the change is live. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the new_name stem-rename behavior and pointing to update_config for text instead of file content. It does not explain the new_type, new_service, or new_is_draft parameters in prose, but those are already documented in the schema.

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: replace a snippet from a base64 file, with the expected {filename, content_base64} payload. It also names the alternative update_config for text content, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its sibling without opening the 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 text-based updates to update_config and restricts use to UI/API-managed or template-derived snippets. It also states the critical exclusion that templates cannot be renamed, which directly affects whether the tool is appropriate.

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