mcp_config_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that api_key changes authentication immediately, that agents-config.json is rewritten automatically, that log_days is silently clamped and that 0 wipes the log immediately. What is missing is return behavior and error/validation semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then per-field detail, with zero filler sentences. The field-routing parenthetical is long but pays for itself by explaining why a subsequent read looks different; a slight trim would earn a 5.

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 annotations, no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is unusually complete: it covers side effects, routing, validation clamping and platform restrictions. The undocumented `name` parameter and absent return-value discussion are the only material gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it explains webhook_url/webhook_key, docs_enabled, logs_enabled, log_days (range, clamping, wipe behavior) and api_key (auth side effect). Two gaps remain: the `name` parameter is never mentioned, and `agent` is only implied as the target identifier.

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: 'Update `agent`'s global configuration dynamically.' It distinguishes itself from the read/load siblings by naming the fields it writes and noting that 'a read afterwards shows them nested.' It does not explicitly name mcp_config_read or mcp_config_load as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the write-then-read relationship is mentioned, and per-field constraints (log_days 0-30, docs_enabled Pi-only) imply when each is safe to set. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'do not use when' guidance against the 13 sibling tools.

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