reconfigure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the high risk via [risk=high], mentions the lockout guard, override behavior, and that reloading filter is equivalent to apply_changes. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure given zero annotation support.

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 front-loaded with a clear headline, followed by relevant context and a concise Args section. The comparison to apply_changes earns its place. Minor inefficiency: the [WRITE][risk=high] prefix partially duplicates the content in the body and Args.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: subsystems, dry-run preview, override, target, and risk. It could add reversibility or permission requirements, but given complexity and absence of annotations, it's reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description documents all 4 parameters (subsystem, dry_run, override, target) in the Args block with brief explanations. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, though explanations are terse — e.g., 'override' and 'target' could use more detail on format and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Reload/commit a subsystem's config') and names the subsystems (filter/nat/aliases). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_changes by explicitly comparing reloading filter to that tool. However, it's not fully differentiated from all sibling tools (pending_changes, undo_apply) and the initial [WRITE][risk=high] prefix is somewhat generic.

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 clearly states when to use it vs apply_changes for the filter subsystem, and mentions the lockout guard and override. It explains that dry_run allows preview without reconfigure. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools (beyond apply_changes) for other scenarios.

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