config_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set a config value' and omits important traits such as whether existing values are overwritten, whether the config is persisted, how the idempotency_key is used, and what side effects occur for the 'agent' field. The presence of idempotency_key in the schema hints at retry semantics, but the description never explains it.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it may be too terse to cover the tool's parameter complexity, but as far as conciseness alone, it is well-structured.

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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is inadequate. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for missing information about parameter semantics, idempotency behavior, or whether the set operation is additive or overwriting. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It does not explain the meaning of 'key', 'value', 'agent', or 'idempotency_key' beyond their titles. The schema provides only names and defaults, and the description adds no semantic value for any of the four parameters.

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 'Set a config value' clearly states the verb (set) and resource (config value), and is distinguishable from sibling tools like config_get, config_list, and config_delete by its write-oriented action. It lacks detail about whether this creates or updates an existing config entry, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to config_get, config_list, or config_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope (e.g., per-agent or global config), or when idempotency should be used. The verb 'set' implies modification, but the description does not help an agent choose this over alternatives.

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