add_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the new configuration is automatically activated. It is silent on duplicate-name handling (error vs. auto-suffix) and on the non-idempotent consequence of calling twice, which is the main risk an agent needs to know.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the creation action and the activation side effect both land immediately. It is efficient, though a second short clause on naming/duplicate behavior would have earned 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 no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. But with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no statement about duplicate names or document-state preconditions, an agent still lacks what it needs to call this confidently.

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% — the schema only supplies titles, no semantics for name, comment, or description. The tool description does not compensate at all: it never mentions the name parameter's requiredness or naming constraints, nor that comment and description are optional free-text metadata.

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 (adds) and resource (a new configuration) plus the scope (active part or assembly document), and adds that the new configuration becomes active. This clearly separates it from activate_configuration (switches existing) and list_configurations (reads), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 usage is implied: create-and-activate a configuration in the currently active document. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (must a document be open?), on what to do instead when the configuration already exists, or on when to prefer activate_configuration over this tool.

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