os_config_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the preview payload contents, 10-minute token validity, preview recomputation, backup behavior (.bak-aiteam-<time> files), and that a decision.user_config_write event is recorded. This gives the agent everything needed to understand side effects and safety constraints.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with purpose and every sentence adds operational value (preview flow, token validity, re-preview rule, backup behavior, event logging, safety warning). It could be slightly tighter, but the length is justified by 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?

The tool is a complex mutation with a two-call confirmation flow, no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values. The description covers when to call, how to call, what gets backed up, what gets recorded, and the safety rule about unseen tokens. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents change, user_quote, and confirm_token. The description reinforces procedural usage (token from preview, user's own words when applying) but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Change') and resource ('the user's OS installation') with the prerequisite that a preview has been approved. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings (e.g., os_health_check, os_restart_api, model_config_set), but the two-call protocol makes its scope clear enough to distinguish it in practice.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-call workflow: first without confirm_token to get a preview, then again with the token and user's own words only after approval. It also states when to re-preview if anything changed and forbids using an unseen token. This is a complete when/how-to-use guide with an explicit exclusion.

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