Configure when maps open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it explains read output, persistence behavior, the user-scope default, and the non-blocking nature of the policy. This is detailed behavioral disclosure for a configuration tool.

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 long but purposeful; each section maps to a decision the agent must make. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into needed operational detail, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, and the description covers reading, writing, defaults, the 'not set' error case, and fallback behavior. Given its simple parameter surface, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it defines each policy value with concrete examples, clarifies the default scope, and reiterates that scope is ignored when reading. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get or set the mapping policy — WHEN the assistant opens a Mellos map,' naming a specific verb pair and resource. It clearly distinguishes this configuration tool from the sibling open/read/declare/remove tools by focusing on policy rather than map content.

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 gives explicit call patterns: no arguments to read, then call again with the chosen policy to persist; scope: 'project' only when the user wants a per-project override. It also says exactly what to do on 'not set' — ask the user, never pick for them — and warns the policy never blocks explicit map requests.

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