setAssistantConfig

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses partial update, validation against catalog, cost impact echo, access gating with default Read+Write, error codes meaning, linked account requirement, and cross-platform session application. No contradictions.

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 fairly long but well-structured. First sentence gives purpose and scope, then details validation, cost, gating, errors, platform effects, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; could be slightly tighter but efficiently conveys critical information.

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?

Given 5 parameters (4 enums), partial update, validation, cost impact, gated access, error conditions, and cross-platform behavior, the description covers all necessary context for correct invocation. No output schema, but return behavior is sufficiently described (errors, cost echo). Complete for a configuration mutation 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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that parameters are optional for partial updates, advising to call getAssistantConfig first to see valid ids, and noting cost impact for model change. This goes beyond schema documentation.

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 it changes dashboard-managed agent settings (voice, realtime model, compaction model, within-session memory) via MCP. It distinguishes from getAssistantConfig (reading) and setCredential (secrets), and specifies partial update behavior. The verb 'Change' and resource 'dashboard-managed Agent settings' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('USE to configure a project's voice agent from the agent loop') and when not to use ('DON'T USE to read current settings (use getAssistantConfig) or to set secrets'). It also advises calling getAssistantConfig first to see valid ids, and mentions the gated access and error responses (401, 403) with instructions.

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