update_config_development_by_id

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the HTTP method and points to GET/schema for field expectations, but it does not disclose whether the update semantics (full replacement vs. merge) or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core verb-resource statement, followed by the endpoint and a minimal Args section. Every line earns its place and there is no fluff or tautology.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency/safety, the description does not need to explain return values. The pointer to GET/schema plus the endpoint and parameter roles is sufficient for an agent to begin invoking the tool correctly, though a brief note on update semantics would make it fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling id as a path parameter and body as a request payload, and it directs the agent to GET/schema for expected fields. It adds practical meaning where the schema is otherwise empty, though it could be even more explicit about how body fields should be structured.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource pair, 'Update DevelopmentConfig', and includes the full PUT endpoint, making the operation unmistakable. This also differentiates it from sibling update_config_* tools without requiring an agent to inspect their schemas.

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 gives actionable guidance by telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to understand the request payload. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage context is clear enough.

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