update_command_whitelist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect ('Writes the server config file') and a security caveat, but omits whether add merges or replaces existing entries, whether remove is idempotent, whether failures roll back the config, and what permissions the write actually requires.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the write side effect plus a preference, then the permission recommendation. No padding 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?

For a config-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and flags the write, but leaves merge/replace behavior, error handling, and interaction with the read counterpart unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 reported at 0%, so the description needs to compensate for two undocumented top-level parameters. It only gestures at allow_args ('prefer tight allow_args') and gives no meaning for add vs remove structure, the command name/basename format, or the null = any args semantics.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add/remove) and the exact resource (commands the local agent may run), which lets an agent distinguish it from the read-only sibling get_command_whitelist. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Offers real guidance on posture ('prefer tight allow_args over broad access') and on permission placement ('should stay in Devin's ask permissions'), which is context an agent would not otherwise have. However, it never states when to call this versus get_command_whitelist or what preconditions (existing whitelist, agent registration) are needed.

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