update_tentacle_config

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses mutation without data destruction, exact success and failure response shapes, live-confirmed error behavior, the non-JSON error body despite the JSON content-type header, and the raised exception on non-2xx responses.

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 long but dense and information-rich; nearly every sentence adds operational value. It is front-loaded with the core update semantics and endpoint, with verification details placed later. Slight redundancy exists in repeating the output shape and the route, but overall it is justified for a tool with no schema coverage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the HTTP mapping, request body shape, exact success/failure bodies, error handling, output format, side-effect profile, and confirmation gate status.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that patch is the raw unwrapped patch dict sent as the JSON body, and that tentacle names the tentacle. It adds meaning beyond the minimal schema, though it stops short of giving concrete example values or enumerating valid patch fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update one tentacle's configuration for the currently active profile.' The endpoint mapping and the explicit note that the batch route exists but is deliberately not exposed clearly distinguish this tool from related operations.

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?

Clearly scoped to a single tentacle and the active profile, and it explicitly warns that the batch route is not available here. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives like get_tentacle_config or list_tentacles, but the read/update distinction is implicit and the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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