raw_manage_tools

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

With no annotations, the description discloses likely side effects ('may open a dialog or change project state') and describes the action as static/no-argument. It doesn't specify exactly what state changes or what the dialog affects, but for a zero-parameter raw action the warning is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and add only relevant behavioral cautions. The leading 'ManageTools:' label is slightly redundant and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but there is no filler.

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?

For a no-argument, no-output-schema raw command in a large sibling group, the description covers core invocation and side-effect risk. It is incomplete about the manager's actual effects and when it should be chosen over siblings, but the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden; the description reinforces this with 'no-argument.' Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no further parameter meaning is needed.

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 names a concrete action ('Open ... manager') and a specific resource ('tools/effects/generators manager'), so an agent can identify what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with raw_manage_analyzers or raw_manage_macros, but the resource scope makes the distinction recognizable.

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?

It signals this is a static, no-argument action and warns that it may open a dialog or alter project state, which is useful guidance for how to invoke it. It does not state when to prefer this over related manage tools or what prerequisites to check before use, beyond 'inspect the command name first.'

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