remnawave_update_config_profile

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical details: the update mutates production, replaces the entire config document, and takes effect on node sync/restart. This fully informs the agent of consequences.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and warning, then explains the key behavior of the 'config' parameter. Every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and detailed annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, danger, parameter semantics, and deployment behavior. The agent has enough information to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that the 'config' parameter overwrites the whole document and must include the complete configuration fetched beforehand. The schema descriptions are also present, but the description provides essential context for correctly constructing the parameter.

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 action (update a config profile), identifies the resource (config profile), and warns that it mutates production by replacing the XRay config. It distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on different resources (hosts, users, nodes).

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 provides explicit usage context: fetch the config first with remnawave_get_config_profile, edit it, and pass the complete result. It warns about the impact on production traffic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools.

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