ps_config_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Register' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like whether this requires special permissions, what happens if an overlayId already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the expected response format is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it communicates very little beyond the basic purpose.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or what happens after registration, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'overlayId' and 'overlay' represent. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid overlayId format, what the overlay object should contain, or any constraints on these parameters, leaving them completely undocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('Register') and the resource ('a new policy overlay'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling tools like 'ps_config_get' or 'ps_config_import', which appear to be related configuration operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'ps_config_get', 'ps_config_import', and 'ps_config_activate', there's no indication of when registration is appropriate versus retrieval, import, or activation of policy overlays.

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