update_config_importlist_by_id

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true for a PUT, destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict them. It adds modest value by spelling out the PUT method and warning that the body schema is dynamic and must be discovered via GET or /schema, but it does not address auth requirements or the full-replacement semantics of PUT.

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 short, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the Args section is clearly structured with no filler. Each line earns its place, though the endpoint URL partially duplicates information implied by the tool name.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what it updates, the endpoint, and how to discover the body fields. The main gaps are the lack of differentiation from sibling update_importlist_by_id and no clarity on whether the update fully replaces or merges the existing config.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter: id is the path parameter and body is the request payload. It also supplies a discovery strategy for the body's fields, which is meaningful guidance given the schema's opaque additionalProperties:true body.

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 and resource ('Update ImportListConfig') and reinforces it with the explicit endpoint PUT /api/v3/config/importlist/{id}. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling update_importlist_by_id, so an agent could confuse which config resource is being updated.

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 provides a useful prerequisite ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first') but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as update_importlist_by_id or update_importlist_bulk. Usage context is implied by the verb and endpoint, not explicitly framed with when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.

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