load_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Defaults to dry_run,' which repeats schema information (dry_run default: true) and does not explain what dry_run actually does or the impact of replacing the active config. It omits details about destructive effects, success/failure responses, or permissions. The POST /load reference is technical context, not behavior transparency.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, immediately stating the core action and key default. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every piece of information ('replace', 'active config', 'POST /load', 'defaults to dry_run') serves a purpose.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, side effects of replacing config, or the meaning of dry_run (e.g., whether it prevents actual changes). This leaves critical context gaps, especially given the potentially destructive nature of the operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'config' parameter beyond implying it is the new config. The 'dry_run' default is mentioned but is already in the schema. No additional meaning about formats, structure, or constraints is provided, leaving the agent to guess about the config object's expected content.

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 the tool's function: 'Replace Caddy's active config via POST /load.' This uses a specific verb ('replace') and resource ('active config'), making it distinct from siblings like patch_config (which modifies) and get_config (which reads). The mention of the HTTP endpoint adds technical specificity.

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 when to choose load_config over patch_config, or any prerequisites or context for full config replacement. Usage must be inferred from the word 'replace' and the siblings list, but no explicit direction is given.

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