modx_migx_update_config

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: merge-style partial updates ("Only the fields you pass are changed"). It says nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, whether omitted fields are truly untouched server-side, or what the server returns, all of which matter for a 13-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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the most important behavioral caveat — no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the space saved was not reinvested in the parameter documentation this tool badly needs.

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 with 13 parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. The absence of an output schema is forgiven, but with no parameter format guidance and no permission/validation context, an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 and it does not. Twelve optional fields (columns, filters, formtabs, extended, permissions, contextmenus, actionbuttons, fieldpermissions, etc.) are typed only as bare strings or numbers with no indication that most are JSON-encoded blobs — arguably the single most important thing an agent needs here. Only the merge semantic around "fields you pass" adds any meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update a MIGX configuration"), which cleanly separates it from modx_migx_create_config, modx_migx_get_config, modx_migx_delete_config and modx_migx_list_configs. It does not, however, say what a MIGX configuration contains or when an agent should reach for this over a related tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The only usage-adjacent signal is the partial-update clause, which implies an agent should prefer this over a full overwrite, but that inference is left to the reader.

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