set_config_value

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the security warning about separate chat usage, the specific config keys and their data types, and the critical warning about allowedDirectories enabling full filesystem access. This provides practical implementation guidance that annotations don't cover.

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 appropriately sized but has structural issues. The core purpose is clear upfront, but the warning about separate chat usage comes before the config key details, which might be better placed after. The final sentence about referencing as 'DC: ...' feels tacked on and doesn't add value for an AI agent. Some sentences could be more efficiently structured.

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 destructive configuration tool with no output schema, the description provides strong completeness: purpose, security implications, parameter semantics with examples, and critical warnings. The main gap is lack of information about return values or confirmation of changes. However, given the annotations cover the destructive nature and the description provides rich parameter context, it's mostly complete.

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 description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It excels by providing: 1) A comprehensive list of valid 'key' values with their expected data types, 2) Clear examples of what 'value' should contain for each key, 3) Important semantic constraints (like empty array enabling full access). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Set a specific configuration value by key.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_config' (which reads rather than writes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible configuration-related tools beyond the obvious get/set distinction.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: 'Should be used in a separate chat from file operations and command execution to prevent security issues.' It also implicitly contrasts with 'get_config' by being the write counterpart. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide detailed exclusion criteria beyond the security warning.

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