edit_config

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

For a tool with no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: null values remove optional fields, immutable identity/audit fields are protected, and repository-level schema validation happens before writing (failure means no write). This is a strong level of disclosure for a mutation tool, though return/error behavior is not mentioned.

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 concise and information-dense sentences cover purpose, editable fields, null semantics, forbidden fields, validation behavior, and a required post-step. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers key behaviors: allowed/forbidden fields, null handling, validation, and post-action build step. The agent can correctly invoke and assess the tool's effects.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by enumerating all editable fields, explicitly naming protected fields, and clarifying null-removal semantics. The folder parameter is self-explanatory with the example in its schema description.

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 updates metadata fields of story config.json, listing specific editable fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like write_chapter (chapter content) and create_story (story creation), with an explicit scope of 'metadata fields'.

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?

It clearly specifies which fields are allowed and which are forbidden, and instructs to run build afterward to update README. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the field scoping makes appropriate use reasonably clear.

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