update_config

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals a mutating operation, and the description adds the useful scope constraint that only name/version fields in two specific manifest files are affected. It does not disclose in-place formatting preservation, whether changes are reversible, or permission requirements, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the target files are stated before anything else. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though extremely terse given the three undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and destructiveHint covers the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage the agent still cannot tell how project_path is resolved, whether both files may be passed, or what key values are legal, making the definition incomplete for a three-parameter mutating tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for three required parameters. It implies that 'key' should be name or version and that project_path points at a manifest file, but leaves 'value' format and the mismatch between the free-string key schema and the described name/version restriction unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resources ('name or version') and target files ('pyproject.toml or package.json'), which is narrower and more useful than the generic tool name update_config. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like edit_file or write_file that could also modify these files.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over the many file-modification siblings (edit_file, write_file, run_command) or over get_config for reads. Usage is only implied by the narrow scope of 'name or version', with no exclusions or preconditions given.

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