update_configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for spelling out the concrete consequence — "fields not sent are cleared" — which is exactly the destructive behavior an agent needs to understand before calling. It stops short of covering permissions or the response shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the destructive replace semantics front-loaded and the alternative routing placed after it. No filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested, undocumented payload and no output schema, the description covers the critical replace/clear behavior and the sibling choice, but leaves the payload's field structure entirely to outside knowledge. Adequate rather than complete.

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 single "payload" parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema explains nothing. The description only gestures at the shape via "ConfigurationPutModel with id," which tells the agent the payload needs an id but not the model's field set or nesting. That is a real but thin contribution against a fully undocumented nested object.

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?

"Replace a configuration" is a specific verb+resource, and the parenthetical "(PUT, ConfigurationPutModel with id)" pins down the exact semantics. It is clearly distinguishable from set_configuration and from the parameter-level siblings, which operate on a different resource.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly and gives the selecting condition: "use set_configuration for partial changes." Combined with the replace-vs-partial contrast, an agent knows exactly which sibling to pick without opening another schema.

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