config_set

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

The description discloses that changes are saved permanently, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden; it does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, or the impact on running server operations. The statement about permanence is useful but minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that clearly state the purpose and the key persistence characteristic. There is no superfluous content, and every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a critical persistency detail. The schema covers parameter constraints. However, it does not mention what happens if called with no parameters (likely a no-op) or any other contextual side effects, but overall it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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?

The description does not add any parameter-specific details, but the input schema already provides comprehensive documentation (max_history and max_rollbacks with ranges and defaults). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra value beyond what the schema offers.

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 that the tool modifies server configuration and that changes are permanent. It uses a specific action verb ('Modifica') and a resource ('configuracion del servidor'), which distinguishes it from getter tools like config_get. However, it lacks explicit detail on what configuration aspects are affected (e.g., history/rollback limits), since those appear only in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that config_get should be used for reading current settings, nor does it describe any preconditions or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without explicit usage criteria.

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