Replace a bot's settings

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

Annotations already mark it destructive, idempotent, and open-world, yet the description adds substantial value beyond them: a full-replace-vs-merge contract, an explicit restart side effect, a guarantee that resting orders are not cancelled, the required `bots:write` scope, and a concrete shared rate limit of 30 req/min. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Well front-loaded with the replacement/restart contract first, then scope, then rate limits. The rate-limit block is slightly redundant ('shared across every tool in the control-plane group' restated as 'Creating, reconfiguring, stopping and deleting all share this budget'), but no sentence is purely filler.

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 destructive, restart-triggering mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential gaps: replacement semantics, side effects, order preservation, auth scope, and throttling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly appears to be missing.

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 meaningfully reframes the `config` parameter as a complete replacement rather than a patch, which changes how the agent must construct it. The killSwitch and sim nuances remain in the schema, so it is not fully additive.

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?

States a precise verb+resource relationship ('Replaces the overrides... and RESTARTS the bot') and immediately clarifies the scope of the operation (full replacement, not a merge). An agent can distinguish this mutation tool from get_bot_config, create_bot, and update_script without reading further.

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?

Gives clear operational context: you must send every override to keep, the bot restarts, and resting venue orders survive. It also nudges toward a single considered change via the rate-limit note. It does not explicitly name the read counterpart (get_bot_config) as the way to fetch current state, so routing is still partly inferred.

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