dollhouse_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it 'manages' configuration settings and replaces specific tools, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, if changes are persistent, potential side effects (e.g., resetting might affect other operations), or error handling. For a configuration management tool with multiple actions and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first part and usage guidance in the second, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions like 'set', 'reset', 'import'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'reset' does to data, authentication needs), return values, or error cases. For a configuration management tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'action' with enum values, 'setting' as dot-notation path). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'setting' paths work, what 'wizard' does, or provide examples beyond the schema's hints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Manage DollhouseMCP configuration settings.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('configuration settings'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools, as none of the siblings appear to be configuration-related (e.g., 'portfolio_config' might be similar but isn't mentioned).

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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating that this tool 'Replaces set_user_identity, get_user_identity, and clear_user_identity tools.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (as a replacement for those specific tools) and implies alternatives are deprecated. No further context is needed for sibling differentiation, as the guidance is direct and actionable.

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