openclaw_config_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as 'destructive' and mentions propagating changes to running components, but fails to disclose required permissions, reversibility, error handling, or potential impact (e.g., service disruption). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences: the first identifies the core action, the second adds critical behavioral context. Every word earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and destructive nature, it lacks details about the buffering mechanism, prerequisites (e.g., pending changes must exist), and return behavior. No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, list of applied changes). The sibling tools suggest a config workflow, but the description does not fully integrate this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter `instance`. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool applies pending config changes (commit) and wraps `config.apply`. It also labels the operation as destructive and explains it propagates buffered config to running components, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling config tools like `openclaw_config_patch` or `openclaw_config_set`, which could cause slight confusion.

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 implies the tool should be used after buffering config changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it. Alternatives like `openclaw_config_set` (direct set) or `openclaw_config_patch` (modify without apply) are not mentioned. The context signals and sibling list hint at the config workflow, but explicit guidance is missing.

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