config.set

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

Discloses that changes are immediate and persistent, which is key behavioral info. However, with no annotations, the description should also mention potential side effects (e.g., bot behavior changes, validation of values) and any access controls. Missing details on error handling.

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?

Two direct sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with action and resource. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, supported keys, effect timing, and persistence. No major gaps. Error handling or value validation could be added but are not critical given tool 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?

Schema already provides 100% coverage on both parameters. The description adds only a brief mention of the keys and implies string format for value, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' with specific resource 'bot configuration' and mention of supported keys. Distinguishes from sibling config tools (e.g., config.dashboard, config.history) by focusing on runtime mutation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like config.dashboard or config.safety_limits. Does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use. Only says 'Pro feature' as a vague access hint.

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