Create config

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: values can be overridden per environment, set_config_value can auto-declare keys later, and parent enables inheritance. It does not contradict annotations. It doesn't mention edge cases like overwriting existing configs or permissions, but it adds substantial context.

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, purposeful paragraphs. The first sentence delivers the core definition, and the rest expands on usage variations. Every sentence adds unique value with no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description fully covers the key creation decisions: seeding items, leaving empty, and parent inheritance. It also clarifies the relationship with set_config_value, making it complete for a create operation.

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 adds value by explaining the purpose of 'items' and 'parent' in context, improving understanding beyond the schema's own field descriptions. It doesn't need to expand config_id or description since the schema already covers them.

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 opens with 'Create a named config: a keyed collection of typed values your code reads at runtime,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes create_config from sibling tools by explaining what a config is and how it relates to set_config_value.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Seed the starting keys here via `items`, or create the config empty and let set_config_value auto-declare keys later' and 'Use `parent` to inherit another config's keys.' This indicates when to use this tool and the optional approaches, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with unrelated sibling tools.

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