configure_web

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists settings to configure, but fails to mention that this is a mutation, whether it overwrites or merges, or error conditions. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

While the description covers the main purpose, it omits important context such as whether a project must be open, whether settings are applied immediately, or how they interact with other export configurations. This is a gap for a tool used in a export pipeline.

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 schema already describes each field (pwa, threading, canvas_resize) with clear descriptions. The description merely echoes these without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Configure web/HTML5 export settings'. It lists specific settings (canvas resize, threading, PWA support), distinguishing it from siblings like configure_android or configure_ios.

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 description implies usage when needing to adjust web export settings, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar settings tools (e.g., set_project_settings) or state prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use.

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