sassy_set_config

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

The description significantly enriches the annotations. It discloses immediate persistence affecting current and future runs, rejection of unknown keys with a returned valid list, JSON-encoded value parsing with fallback to raw storage, and the return of old/new values. This goes well beyond what readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint provide.

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 every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core mutation semantics, then logically walks through key constraints, value format, return value, and usage. Given the 0% schema coverage, the length is justified and 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?

For a config-mutation tool with two undocumented string parameters and an output schema, the description covers all needed context: persistence behavior, validation, parsing rules, error handling, return shape, and a pointer to the read companion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 carries the entire burden. It compensates fully by listing every supported config key, explaining that value must be a JSON-encoded string, providing concrete examples ('1000', '["x"]', '"powershell"'), and documenting fallback behavior if parsing fails. An agent can construct correct calls without any additional information.

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: 'Overwrites a server configuration value and persists it to the SassyMCP home directory config.json.' It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling read tool sassy_get_config by explicitly naming it as the companion for inspecting current values. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use clause ('Use to tune limits, the default shell, blocked commands, safety modes, or panel settings') and names the relevant alternative sassy_get_config for prior inspection. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use this tool relative to similar setters like sassy_env_set, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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