update_config_naming_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the PUT method and the advice to read GET/schema, which hints at the body's flexibility. It doesn't disclose what happens on partial updates, validation errors, or whether the body is a full replacement, but the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotation reduce the burden.

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 with the action and endpoint. The Args section is terse and useful. It could be slightly more structured, but every line earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 config update tool with an opaque body, the description points to the right external sources (GET and /schema) to discover fields, which is a reasonable delegation. However, it doesn't mention the output schema or any response behavior, and the body parameter remains entirely opaque without following the external references. Given the tool's complexity and the 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only provides 'id' and 'body' with no property descriptions. The description explains that id is a path parameter and body is the request payload, but it doesn't describe the body's structure or fields beyond pointing to GET/schema. It adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema.

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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('NamingConfig'), and the HTTP method and path are provided. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling update_*_by_id tools by naming the specific config resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_config_naming_by_id or list_config_naming.

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 gives a clear directive: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to see expected fields. This is practical usage guidance for a PUT endpoint with an opaque body. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the instruction to consult GET/schema is strong context.

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