update_config_ui_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the HTTP method and the body prerequisite, but does not describe side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. 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: action, endpoint, then Args. Every line adds information, with no redundant repetition of annotations or schema details.

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 two-parameter config update with an opaque nested body, the description tells the agent how to discover expected fields and what role each parameter plays. It could clarify whether the PUT fully replaces or partially merges the config, but annotations and the output schema cover much of the remaining context.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the Args block compensates by labeling id as a path parameter and body as the request payload, then directing callers to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field details. This is practical mitigation, even though the body structure itself remains opaque.

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 'Update UiConfig' and gives the exact endpoint 'PUT /api/v3/config/ui/{id}', making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes this from the get/list config tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' is a useful prerequisite, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is mostly implied by the name and endpoint.

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