fx_manage_server_cfg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it mutates the main server.cfg, but says nothing about whether changes are reversible, whether a backup is made, whether the running server must be restarted, or what a 'check' returns versus an 'ensure'/'remove'.

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 front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the core operation first. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 mutating configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives no return-value expectations for 'check', no side-effect or safety context, and no indication of how resourceName influences the resulting directive.

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%, so the schema already documents action, comment, and resourceName, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the notion of 'ensure'/'start' directives, but this partly conflicts with the action enum (check/ensure/remove), since 'start' never appears as an action value and the mapping between directives and actions is left unexplained.

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 names specific verbs (check/add/remove) and a precise target: the 'ensure' or 'start' directives in the server's main server.cfg. This scopes it far more narrowly than generic siblings like fx_read_file/fx_write_file or fx_write_file, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this text why it should call fx_manage_server_cfg rather than editing the file through fx_write_file, nor when to prefer 'ensure' over 'remove'.

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