Update artifact configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'DESTRUCTIVE:' while adding new behavioral context: 'may affect message processing' and the edit-mode requirement. These details go beyond what the annotation provides, giving the agent a fuller safety picture.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the destructive warning. It conveys the essential purpose and key constraints without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured to separate prerequisites from effects.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, potential return values, error conditions, permission requirements, and any note about the response. The agent would be left guessing on crucial details needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the description bears the responsibility of explaining parameters. It mentions 'externalized parameter value' but does not clarify what 'id', 'version', 'parameter_key', or 'parameter_value' mean, their formats, or relationships. The description does not 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 clearly states the action (update), the resource (externalized parameter value on a design-time artifact), and the environment (live CPI tenant). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_artifact_configurations. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a critical precondition (artifact must be in edit mode) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention read counterparts or when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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