update_app_config

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the critical behavioral trait that the operation is a REPLACE and will revert unmentioned keys to defaults. It does not address potential side effects or permissions, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise with two sentences and a warning, efficiently conveying key information. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for the warning), but overall it is appropriately sized.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits basic return type info and lacks clarity on the 'values' parameter format. For a simple update tool, the critical aspects are covered, but completeness could be higher.

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?

With 0% schema parameter description coverage, the description does not compensate adequately. It explains that 'values' should be the complete config, but lacks details on the expected structure or allowed keys, leaving semantic gaps for an AI agent.

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 'Update app configuration,' uses a specific verb+resource pattern, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_app_config by warning about the replace behavior.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it is a REPLACE operation, not a merge; it instructs users to always get current config first with get_app_config, modify values, and send the complete config. This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus get_app_config.

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