infracost_configure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get or set' without explaining side effects, persistence of changes, or potential exposure of sensitive data like the API key. This is a significant gap for a tool that can read and write configuration.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary information. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, the behavior when both get and set are provided, or any side effects, leaving an agent without critical context for reliable use.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context with examples like 'api_key' and 'currency', but does not clarify the relationship between get, set, and apiKey parameters, or how they interact.

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 gets or sets Infracost configuration options, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infracost_breakdown or infracost_diff, which focus on cost analysis rather than configuration.

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 implies usage for configuration management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as infracost_auth for API key handling. It lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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