cortex_update_config

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral trait of being a mutation (update) and the tier requirement. For a simple config update, this is sufficient; no additional side effects are noted.

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 concise with a one-line purpose, a brief explanation of the tool's functionality, a prerequisite line, and formatted argument descriptions. Every sentence adds value without excess.

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?

With three optional parameters and an output schema (not shown but indicated as existing), the description covers the essential semantics. It could mention default behaviors when params are null, but the current level is adequate for a config update tool.

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 fully compensates. Each parameter has a clear explanation: consolidation_threshold (range 0.0-1.0), reinforcement_boost (how it affects recall), decay_rate (fade speed). This adds the meaning the schema lacks.

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 'Update Cortex configuration' and specifies the resources affected (memories consolidation, reinforcement, decay). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cortex_config (likely read-only) and cortex_status.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires Pro tier or Novyx Cloud', which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cortex_config for reading. The inference is clear but not explicit.

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