modx_clientconfig_update_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost none of it. It does not say whether the update is partial or a full overwrite, whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible — all critical for a 14-parameter mutation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — structurally clean. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, since the tool has far more surface area than one clause can cover.

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 14 parameters, a nested object, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition is far too thin for the tool's complexity. It conveys the resource being edited but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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, yet it covers only the id/key identifier choice. The other twelve parameters — including group, source, xtype, context_values, process_options, and the nested context_values object — receive no meaning, format, or constraint information anywhere in the definition.

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 a ClientConfig setting'), which separates it from the many unrelated siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as modx_update_system_setting or modx_update_context_setting, so an agent still has to infer that ClientConfig is a distinct setting domain.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusion directing the agent to modx_clientconfig_create_setting for new settings or to the system/context setting variants for other scopes. The 'by id or key' phrase hints at identification but gives no rule for choosing between them or what happens if both are supplied.

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