Plan a setacf change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: that no mutation occurs and that the underlying setacf tool has no dry-run, explaining why planning is mandatory before applying.

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 non-execution constraint and the mandatory-call ordering front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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 15-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (produces an argument vector, does not execute). It could say a bit more about what the caller does with the returned vector, but the missing detail is minor.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents each field (pin, kind, device, signal, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as which combination is required for a given edit type, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and output ('Build the exact setacf.exe argument vector') plus the crucial constraint ('WITHOUT executing it'). This clearly distinguishes it from setacf_apply, the sibling that would run the change.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Always call this first') and the reason (setacf edits in place, no dry-run mode), which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs. It stops short of naming setacf_apply as the follow-up execution step, so routing to the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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