set_config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that validation happens before sending, that dry_run defaults to nothing being sent, and what the result contains (request plus each field's current and new value). It omits permission requirements and whether delete is irreversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and validation behavior, then defaults, then a concrete example. Four dense sentences with no filler; slightly packed but every sentence contributes.

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 generic mutation tool with six params (one nested object) and no output schema, the description covers validation, defaults, and result shape adequately. Missing only sibling routing guidance and any mention of permissions or side effects on delete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value beyond the schema by explaining dry_run behavior, the action default, and the notable rule that reference fields take a list of names (e.g. srcaddr: ['LAB-NET']) — but on balance it largely restates what the schema already documents.

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 scope: changing any configuration endpoint, with pre-validation against the FortiGate schema. It implies a generic setter distinct from read-side siblings like get_config/describe_config, though it never explicitly names those 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?

It documents the action modes (update default, create, delete) and that dry_run defaults to no-op, which is real usage guidance. However, with dozens of dedicated siblings (create_firewall_policy, update_interface, set_dns_server, create_address…), it gives no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus those task-specific ones — the biggest gap in the definition.

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