edit_config

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that writes are preceded by repository-level schema validation, failed validation means no write, and null values remove optional fields. It also states identity/audit fields cannot be modified. This is valuable behavioral detail; no contradiction with annotations was found.

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 compact and dense, with the purpose in the first sentence and supporting constraints following efficiently. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behavior: editable fields, removal semantics, validation guarantees, and the required build step. It does not describe return values or error formats, but the given annotations and schema make the description sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Although the input schema already covers parameter names and basics, the fields object is generic and benefits greatly from the description's explicit enumeration of valid field keys, null semantics, and prohibited fields. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's minimal 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 opens with a specific action—updating story config.json metadata fields—and enumerates the exact editable fields. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like write_chapter or create_story by scoping to metadata and explicitly listing what can and cannot be changed.

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 gives clear usage context: which fields may be edited, which are forbidden, the null-removal behavior, schema validation, and the follow-up requirement to run build. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the field restrictions and post-condition effectively guide when to use the tool.

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