dollhouse_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'replaces' three other tools, which hints at consolidation, but doesn't describe what 'manage' entails operationally—whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the response format looks like. For a multi-action configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important context about tool consolidation. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with essential information.

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 including mutations like 'set' and 'reset'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'manage' means operationally, what happens with different actions, or what the tool returns. For a configuration management tool with significant behavioral implications, this is insufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the 'action' enum meanings, 'setting' path conventions, or 'value' handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 as 'Manage DollhouseMCP configuration settings' with a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('configuration settings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it replaces three specific identity tools, though it doesn't differentiate from other configuration tools like 'portfolio_config'.

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 clear context by stating this tool replaces three specific tools (set_user_identity, get_user_identity, clear_user_identity), which implicitly guides when to use it instead of those alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other configuration tools like 'portfolio_config' or provide exclusion criteria.

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