Update Kanban orchestration settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write semantics are covered. The description adds that it writes to config.yaml and produces 'redacted receipts', which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain what 'redacted receipts' look like, what happens to concurrent updates, or whether this requires restart to take effect. The description adds moderate value beyond annotations but doesn't fully disclose mutation behavior.

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 that names the endpoint, the fields affected, and where they're written. No wasted words. Slightly below 5 because it could use a second sentence to clarify behavioral expectations, but as written it's tight.

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?

Output schema exists which helps with return value expectation. However, this is a mutating operation with 3 optional fields, and the description doesn't clarify whether updating one field leaves others unchanged, whether all three must be provided together, or what side effects occur on the running system (does it require restart like hermes_gateway_restart hints?). Given the complexity of an orchestrator-update operation, slightly richer context would improve completeness.

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% with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Whether to automatically decompose triaged tasks', 'Default assignee for newly created tasks'). The description adds marginal value by listing all three updatable fields but doesn't provide anything beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states it is a 'Typed PUT /api/plugins/kanban/orchestration wrapper that updates orchestrator_profile, default_assignee, or auto_decompose in config.yaml'. This clearly identifies the verb (update), resource (kanban orchestration settings), and the specific fields affected. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hermes_kanban_orchestration_get. It's slightly less than a 5 because it's phrased as a 'wrapper' which adds implementation detail rather than pure function clarity.

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 implicitly indicates the use case via the field names and 'config.yaml' mention, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs the put/get variants, or any security/permission context. It's clear that this updates orchestration settings, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. For a mutation tool with no required params, guidance on consequences would be valuable.

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