update_config

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is communicated structurally. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to the existing config or whether unspecified fields are preserved. It does not contradict the 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. However, its brevity sacrifices meaningful content, leaving parameter semantics and behavior unexplained. It is concise but not appropriately informative for an update tool with an undocumented nested object parameter.

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?

This is a destructive update tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description offers only one generic sentence. It does not explain update semantics, required fields beyond what the schema implies, or what the nested config object expects. The description is not sufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 explain any of the three parameters. It does not clarify that config_id identifies the existing configuration, what name updates, or what the config object should contain. With zero schema descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate and did not.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Update an existing scrape configuration.' It distinguishes the operation from create/get/delete siblings by saying 'existing,' which implies the configuration must already exist. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or scope limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose this tool over create_config, delete_config, generate_config, or other siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, partial vs. full updates, or situations where another tool would be appropriate. Usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'update.'

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