update_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 states the action without revealing side effects: does it overwrite the entire config or merge with existing mappings? What happens to the output path? Does it return anything or just save? The description provides no information about mutation semantics, permissions, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes to clarity. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It states what it does but omits critical behavioral details such as whether the update is incremental or replaces existing mappings, and what is returned (if anything). These gaps could lead to incorrect usage or unexpected side effects.

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%: both 'mappings' and 'outputPath' have descriptive text in the schema. Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely paraphrases 'mappings' as 'new selector mappings'. It does not clarify the structure of each mapping object or how they are applied relative to existing entries.

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: 'Update scraper configuration with new selector mappings'. The verb 'update' is specific to modifying an existing config, distinguishing it from siblings like load_scraper_config (which loads) and validate_selectors (which validates). The resource ('scraper configuration') and the action ('new selector mappings') are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies that this tool should be used when the user needs to update selector mappings in a scraper configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts. Since the tool's purpose is direct and unique among siblings, usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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