Configure clarification intensity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses side effects: set saves user defaults, get with preferences is a task-only override without saving, and reset restores balanced defaults. The rule 'Never change defaults without the user choosing them' adds an important operational constraint. It does not mention permissions or output format, but for a config tool, persistence behaviors are well covered.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with a clear directive, and every sentence adds distinct value: usage context, action semantics, and a safety rule. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must fully equip the agent. It covers the action semantics and persistence behavior well, but it leaves the preference fields (depth, coverage, frequency, intensity) completely unexplained. An agent cannot correctly invoke set or get-with-preferences without guessing the meaning of these fields, making the definition incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. The 'action' parameter is well explained through the verbs get/set/reset, but the 'preferences' object's fields (depth, coverage, frequency, intensity) are not defined at all. The description only generically mentions 'preferences' without explaining what each sub-field controls, leaving the agent unable to construct valid preference values beyond the schema's bare enums.

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 identifies the tool as a preferences/configurator for clarification, with explicit verbs and resources: get, set, and reset with defined effects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (ask, read_answer, submit_answer, native) by focusing on configuration rather than question/answer flow.

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 opening 'Read this before planning clarification' gives clear context for when to use the tool. It explains what get/set/reset do, so an agent knows when to retrieve, save, or restore defaults. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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