patch_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry_run default (a crucial safety behavior) and the HTTP method/path pattern. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but the dry-run disclosure is significant.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the dry_run note is placed in a logical position.

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 patch tool, the description covers the most critical behavior (dry_run default) and HTTP pattern. It lacks details on return values or the shape of 'value', but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is reasonably complete.

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 explain parameters. It implicitly explains 'path' (config subpath) and 'dry_run' (defaults to true), but the 'value' parameter is left entirely unexplained. This is a notable gap for a required parameter.

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 action ('Patch'), the target ('a config subpath'), and the HTTP method (PATCH /config/{path}). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_config (read) and load_config (load/replace).

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?

It provides a key usage guideline by noting 'Defaults to dry_run,' implying you can preview changes without applying them. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer this over alternatives, but the purpose and sibling names make the context clear.

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