agy_set_config

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a decent job: it discloses the side effect of creating the config file if nonexistent and specifies the exact return format. It does not cover overwrite semantics or error conditions, but adds meaningful context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 compact and well-organized with distinct sections for the core action, side effect, return format, and example. There is no filler text; each line 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?

The description provides a usable overview, return format, and a concrete example, which is adequate for a simple setter. However, it omits guidance on the ctx parameter, valid config keys, and overwrite behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent with no earlier context.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the key, value, or ctx parameters. The example implies positional mapping but leaves ctx entirely undocumented, and the schema's value type (string) conflicts with the documented return type (any), adding ambiguity.

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 states a concrete verb ('Set') and resource ('configuration value in Antigravity config.json'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like agy_get_config by focusing on the write operation.

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 implies usage as the config setter counterpart to agy_get_config, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions exclusions/prerequisites. The verb and resource provide basic context, but no proactive routing guidance is offered.

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