agent_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that write access is gated by a user setting, lists safety-critical exclusions, and explains atomicity, provenance tagging, and one-step revertibility. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 dense but every sentence carries important information about permissions, atomicity, and usage. It is slightly long, but the detail is warranted for a security-sensitive config tool.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, it covers operation semantics, write gating, allowed keys, and side effects well. The only minor gap is explicit error behavior when set is called while writes are disabled, but this is reasonably implied by 'Writing is OFF unless...'.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by naming allowlisted key categories and giving an example (tasks.go.test). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'map of dotted config key to value' and helps the agent understand what can be set.

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 tool reads and conditionally writes a small allowlist of plumb config keys, listing specific categories like task commands, log level, and theme. It distinguishes itself by focusing on agent configuration management rather than general file operations.

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 provides a concrete use case ('set up a repo's build/test commands') and explains the describe/set workflow, indicating when to use describe first. It implicitly excludes general file edits but does not explicitly name alternative tools, which would push it to a 5.

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