goclaw_config_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Patch specific fields' and 'merged into current config', which hints at a non-destructive merge behavior. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on invalid fields, rate limits, or error responses. For a configuration mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of patching a gateway configuration (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the format of 'patches', expected return values, error conditions, or security implications. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 100%, with the parameter 'patches' documented as 'Configuration fields to patch (merged into current config)'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 clearly states the action ('Patch') and resource ('GoClaw gateway configuration'), specifying it operates on 'specific fields'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'goclaw_config_get' (read) and 'goclaw_config_apply' (full apply), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the description text.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goclaw_config_apply' (which likely applies a full config) or 'goclaw_config_get' (which reads config). The description implies partial updates but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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