update_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: updates are deep-merged and unspecified keys are preserved. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the file is created if missing, whether changes are written immediately, or what happens on invalid paths or merge conflicts.

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?

Two focused sentences plus a compact Args section. The core behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: it defines the operation, states the preservation guarantee, and explains the two parameters with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core update semantics and both parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not necessary. However, it omits practical guidance about whether the config file must already exist, how paths are resolved, or any error scenarios, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, so parameter semantics must come from the description. It explains config_path as 'Path to the config file (relative to config dir or absolute)' and updates as 'Dictionary of updates to deep-merge into the config', adding real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' and 'object'. More detail about merge behavior for nested structures would be richer, but the basics are well 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 clearly states the verb 'Deep-merge updates' and the resource 'existing YAML config file', specifying the scope of the operation with 'Only specified keys are changed'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_config, which is a read operation, and resume_training, which has a different purpose.

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 usage context by indicating this is for updating an existing YAML config, and the 'Only specified keys are changed' note suggests partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention constraints such as the file already existing or authorization requirements.

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