Config Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: value validation against the setting's declared type and range, persistence to a named file, and — unusually valuable — that the reply reports old vs new value, immediate-vs-restart applicability, and environment-variable precedence. Reversibility is covered by pointing at config_unset.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its consequences, then usage triggers, then per-parameter semantics, then siblings — a sensible order with no filler. The sentences are long and dense, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description still usefully previews what the reply contains (old/new value, restart behavior, env precedence). For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 must compensate, and it does: key is defined by reference to config_get's listing with dotted examples ('songs', 'ffmpeg', 'live.trim_db'), and value carries concrete typed examples ('D:/music', -3, true, ['dj','mc']) backed by the earlier type enumeration. The key set itself is not enumerated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('one of ismail's settings') with the full effect chain (type-checked, written to ~/.ismail/config.json) stated up front. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling readers/writers config_get and config_unset, so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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 gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('songs in another folder', 'ffmpeg, Blender or browser it did not find', 'live master's trim or cap changed') and names the alternatives with their roles: config_get(key) reads it back, config_unset(key) returns it to the default.

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