Set Config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states side effects (updates environment variables, restarts app unless no_restart=True), prerequisites (read-write mode, confirm=True), and a key behavioral trait (values are never echoed back, only keys). This is exemplary for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by three tightly scoped sentences covering side effects, prerequisites, and response behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with side effects, prerequisites, and a nested object parameter), the description covers the critical operational context: side effects, required mode, confirmation flag, and response behavior. It doesn't describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. Minor gap: it doesn't specify what happens if confirm=False, but the default in the schema implies it.

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. It explains the purpose of 'pairs' (config vars), 'no_restart' (controls restart side effect), and 'confirm' (required for write). It doesn't detail the 'app' parameter, but that is self-evident from the tool's purpose. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('config vars on a Dokku app'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like app_config (which likely reads config) and restart_app (which restarts). The title and description align, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (to update config vars) and explicitly notes prerequisites (DOKKU_MCP_MODE=read-write and confirm=True). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the clear mutation semantics make the usage context clear.

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