goclaw_config_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this operation 'overwrites current config,' which is a critical behavioral trait indicating it's destructive and non-incremental. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the gateway during application, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing a caution. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (a destructive configuration tool with nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the overwrite behavior and caution but misses details like response format, side effects, or error conditions. For a high-stakes tool, more context would be beneficial.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'config' described as 'Full configuration object to apply.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain the structure, format, or examples of the config object. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Apply a full configuration') and target resource ('to the GoClaw gateway'), with the verb 'apply' being specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'goclaw_config_patch', which likely applies partial configurations, though the 'full configuration' wording provides some implicit distinction.

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 includes 'Use with caution,' which implies this is a high-impact operation, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus 'goclaw_config_patch' or other alternatives. There's no explicit guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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