Apply bulk config

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

Annotations already mark destructive=true; description adds concrete context that the config body is passed through verbatim and can overwrite or remove existing fields. This usefully warns an agent about potential data loss. It does not describe rollback, failure modes, or permission requirements, but the destructive warning is well covered.

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 sentences, with the key usage context front-loaded and the alternative tool guidance placed directly afterward. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 destructive, arbitrary-body tool, the description covers when to use it, what it does, and what to use instead for single-field changes. It does not mention return values or what happens after apply, but no output schema exists and the use-case guidance is strong.

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 only 50%: config has a description, project does not. The description adds useful semantics for config (multiple services/addons/secrets at once, overwrite/remove behavior), but it does not clarify the project parameter format or the actual config shape an agent should send. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 operation: applying bulk, config-as-code style configuration to a Lizard project in one request. It explicitly contrasts this with changing one field at a time, making it easy to distinguish from narrower sibling tools like service_set and secrets_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?

The description starts with 'Use this when...' and explicitly says to prefer the narrower service.*/secrets.* tools for single-field changes. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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