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 so well: it discloses the agent-side routing (webhook_url -> notifications.webhook, etc.), that reads afterwards show nested values, that log_days is clamped 0-30 and that 0 clears the log, that docs_enabled is Pi-only, and that changing api_key immediately re-authenticates and rewrites config.json. It omits permissions/auth requirements and whether omitted fields are preserved.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and then the field semantics in a sensible order. It is long but nearly every clause carries information the schema does not.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies routing, clamping rules, side effects, and platform restrictions. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, partial-update semantics, response shape) are real but modest.

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% across 8 params, so the description must compensate, and it explains the meaning and routing of webhook_url, webhook_key, docs_enabled, logs_enabled, log_days, and api_key — including value semantics and side effects. Only `name` and the `agent` target itself are left undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update `agent`'s global configuration dynamically.' That clearly separates it from the read/load siblings (mcp_config_read, mcp_config_load), though it never explicitly names them.

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 by 'dynamically' and by the field-by-field explanation of what each key affects, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mcp_config_read/mcp_config_load or what prerequisites exist.

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