update_config

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'update' (mutation), but does not discuss persistence, validation, permissions, or error handling. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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, with no redundancy. It is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the core action and options.

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 the moderate complexity (two modes, 4 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits context about error conditions, usage constraints, or when each mode is appropriate, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The description adds context about the two operational modes (section vs. full replacement), which mirrors the schema structure. However, no novel parameter semantics are introduced beyond what the schema already conveys.

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: updating configuration either with section-specific changes or full replacement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_config (read-only) and reset_config (resets to defaults) by emphasizing the update action and the two available modes.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reload_config or reset_config. No explicit context about prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate is provided.

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