update_configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and return format, but does not mention partial update semantics (whether omitted fields are left unchanged or reset), authentication requirements, failure modes, or side effects. The return description is minimal ('JSON string with the updated configuration') and insufficient 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 structured with an overview, Args section, and Returns, but the Args list is lengthy and repetitive, essentially restating parameter names with 'New' prefixes. The purpose line is concise, but the rest could be tightened without losing meaning. It is not overly verbose but not exemplary.

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 tool with 14 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of partial updates (e.g., whether null values are ignored), does not provide examples, and gives only a sparse return format. An agent would need additional context to use this tool confidently.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description's parameter list provides only trivial 'New X' phrases that simply repeat the parameter names (e.g., 'name: New configuration name'). It does not clarify any constraints, formats, or relationships between fields, and it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the precise action ('Update') and resource ('existing configuration in IT Glue'), which clearly differentiates it from create_configuration (which would create a new one) and read-only tools like get_configuration. No ambiguity about what this 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 the tool is for modifying an existing configuration (by saying 'existing'), but it does not explicitly contrast it with create_configuration, nor does it mention when not to use it. The use case is reasonably clear from the verb and 'existing' keyword, but explicit guidance about alternatives is missing.

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