Update artifact configuration

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

With destructiveHint=true already signalling that this is a write with destructive potential, the description adds useful behavioral context: it updates an externalized parameter and requires edit mode. It does not mention versioning or failure behavior, but it goes beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and reserved for the one prerequisite that matters. Every word earns its place.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description gives the critical edit-mode constraint but leaves version semantics and result behavior to inference. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions are absent, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies that parameter_key/parameter_value represent an externalized setting; id and especially optional version (which likely controls concurrency) are not explained. This is insufficient compensation for 0% coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a precise object ('externalized parameter value'), and a target scope ('design-time artifact'), which clearly differentiates it from read-focused siblings and other artifact mutations.

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 states the key precondition for safe use: the artifact must be in edit mode (not read-only), and frames the tool as applying only to design-time artifacts. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, stopping short of a 5.

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