Infra Configure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the change is a live, in-process mutation that takes effect immediately and persists only for subsequent tool calls. It does not clarify scope (session vs. all users) or what happens to fields left unset, which is why it falls short of 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its field set front-loaded before the side-effect note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. The description supplies the key runtime-effect context, but a reconfiguration tool would benefit from stating whether omitted parameters leave existing settings unchanged and whether the change is scoped to the session or the whole server.

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%, and the schema itself is richer than the description (model precedence over preset, temperature unsupported on certain Flash models, conditional auth token). The description merely lists the four configurable aspects, adding no semantics the schema does not already carry.

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?

Specific verb ('Reconfigure') plus resource ('the server at runtime') and an enumeration of exactly what can be changed (preset, model, thinking level, temperature). No sibling in the tool list performs runtime configuration, so the tool is unambiguous even without naming an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to an alternative, but with no sibling config tool the usage is reasonably implied. The note that changes apply to all subsequent tool calls gives context about consequences rather than guidance on choosing this tool.

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