update_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it delivers almost nothing: it doesn't state whether the patch is merged or replaces values, whether omitted keys are preserved, what permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, or what a bad key does. The only merge semantics ('Partial config patch to merge') come from the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficiently structured. It is arguably too sparse, but sparseness is captured under contextual completeness rather than conciseness.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with a free-form nested patch object and no output schema, the definition omits critical context: what global settings exist, how the merge behaves, and what happens on invalid keys. An agent has essentially no basis for constructing a correct patch.

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 100%, and the patch parameter is documented in the schema as a partial config patch to merge, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, key names, or value-shape detail beyond the schema, which matters given the nested object with unrestricted additionalProperties.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('global configuration settings'), with 'global' implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling read_config and read_campaign_config. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus read_config or read_campaign_config, no prerequisites, and no note on when a config change is appropriate. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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