update_global_config

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

Annotations only declare that this is a mutating, destructive operation; the description adds the crucial semantics of a partial merge ('settings you omit are kept'), string coercion, persistence to the database, deferred application by the scheduler, and the explicit limitation that it 'cannot confirm it is live'. That last point prevents an agent from wrongly verifying success through this call.

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 short clauses, each carrying distinct information: mutation semantics, sibling routing, and lifecycle caveat. The omission-merge behavior is front-loaded where it matters most.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent that the call result does not prove the configuration is live, closing the biggest gap for a deferred-apply tool. It leaves open what permissions or restart implications exist for a destructive global change, a minor remaining gap.

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 100% and the single nested 'config' object already documents the key-value shape, the string storage, and an example. The description repeats the string-storage fact but adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 scopes it away from the per-service sibling. An agent can distinguish this from update_service, update_config, and update_config_from_file without opening any 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 only one service's settings are involved, which is the main ambiguity risk. It does not address the other plausible alternatives (update_config, update_config_from_file) or any prerequisites, so it stops short of full 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.