Edit one config field

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that changes immediately apply to the editor config and repeats the mutating nature, but does not disclose failure behavior, reversibility, or permission requirements beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action and examples, then adds the immediate-effect warning and the prerequisite lookup guidance.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, immediate application, and the need to consult firmware_edit_actions. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but the annotations already carry the core safety profile and the schema is fully documented.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by naming example actions, describing args as positional, and pointing to firmware_edit_actions for exact signatures and enum values such as receiverKey/actuator.

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: it calls a single firmware store action on the app store, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from firmware_edit_actions as the executor versus the discovery tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from firmware_config_set.

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 clear prerequisite: use firmware_edit_actions first to obtain the exact argument signature. It also states that the action immediately applies to the editor config and is mutating, which gives useful usage context, but it does not name when not to use this tool versus related siblings like firmware_config_set.

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