Update configuration

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the description adds real value: deep-merge (not replace) semantics, persistence, the secret-write gate, and the fact that the returned config is masked. It omits the confirm-token prerequisite, though the schema documents it.

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 carrying distinct information (operation, restriction, return value), with the core action front-loaded. No filler.

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 mutation tool with nested patch objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and briefly characterizes the return. It would be fully complete if it mentioned the conditional confirm-token requirement rather than leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 100%, with both patch and confirm fully documented including an example patch shape, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource with the exact merge semantics: 'Deep-merge a JSON patch into the config file and persist it.' This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling read tool buffer_get_config and the sibling buffer_reset_config, which does not merge.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: only non-secret settings are writable unless safety.allowSecretWrite is true, which functions as an explicit when-not exclusion. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., reset vs. patch), but the usage context is unambiguous.

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