config_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose two meaningful traits: the write is persistent and requires user confirmation. It omits what happens on invalid keys, whether existing values are overwritten, and any error/return behavior, leaving significant gaps 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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety prerequisite, then examples. Every sentence adds information with no padding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistence and confirmation, but omits validation behavior, overwrite semantics, and full parameter semantics. It is adequate but not complete for a config-writing operation.

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% for two required params, so the description must compensate. It partially does by giving concrete key examples (retrieval_mode with allowed values auto|hybrid, abstain_threshold=0.5), but it does not explain the value type constraints or enumerate valid keys, leaving one of the two params thinly covered.

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 a specific verb and resource: writing a key into board_config.json, and adds the scope 'тюнинг из хоста, persistent'. An agent can tell it is the write counterpart to the sibling config_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a real prerequisite ('ПОДТВЕРДИ у юзера перед вызовом') and example keys/values, which imply the intended tuning context. It never says when to prefer this over config_get or how to pick valid keys, so guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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