update_config_metadata_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the PUT method and warns that body fields are resource-defined via GET/schema, which is helpful because body is additionalProperties=true. No contradiction with annotations.

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: purpose first, then endpoint, then concise parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency and destructive behavior, the description only needed to clarify the body's discoverability, which it does. It could have explicitly named the matching GET sibling, but the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description explains that id is a path parameter and body is a request payload. More importantly, it tells the agent how to discover the body's expected fields via GET or /schema, partially compensating for the opaque body schema. It does not enumerate specific fields, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'MetadataConfig', reinforced by the PUT endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling update_metadata_by_id, but the resource path and name make the target unambiguous enough.

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 useful prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the expected body fields. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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