reconfigure

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

Annotations already flag a destructive, non-idempotent write, but the description adds real value beyond them: the lockout guard, the override escape hatch, and dry_run-as-preview. The [WRITE][risk=high] tag reinforces severity without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the risk/operation tag, then one explanatory paragraph, then a compact Args list. Every sentence is functional, though the prose paragraph could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the description supplies the mutation semantics, lockout risk, and dry-run preview an agent needs for a high-risk tool. It says nothing about post-commit state or response, a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden; it names all four parameters with meaning, including the filter/nat/aliases value set that the schema lacks. Only 'target' is thinly described, keeping it from a 5.

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 concrete verb (reload/commit) and resource (a subsystem's config), and enumerates the subsystems (filter/nat/aliases). It explicitly relates itself to the sibling apply_changes, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explains that reloading the 'filter' subsystem commits staged rules just like apply_changes and shares its lockout guard and override, which is exactly the routing context an agent needs. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-apply_changes rule or a stated when-not condition, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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