OpenCode Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain whether the update merges or replaces the existing configuration, whether a restart is needed, or what side effects may occur.

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 short sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is complex because its only input is an open-ended config object, yet the description provides no detail about what fields or settings can be included. Although an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description still leaves a significant gap for the agent to understand how to construct a valid config and what the tool's effective scope is.

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?

The only parameter, 'config', is an arbitrary object with no property descriptions in the schema and a schema description coverage of 0%. The description merely says 'configuration', which adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name. It provides no examples, keys, format, or constraints.

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 names the action ('Update') and the resource ('OpenCode server configuration'). It is a meaningful statement rather than a tautology, and 'server configuration' hints at a broader scope than sibling tools like set_model_tiers or set_preferences. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opencode_set_provider_auth, set_model_tiers, or set_preferences. An agent reading this alone cannot determine whether to use this tool or a more specific one.

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