Write broker Config.toml

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'Overwrites the existing Config.toml' which aligns with that. It also discloses a subtle behavior: ack_mode/transacted parameters are only written as comments, not actually affecting runtime behavior. This goes beyond the annotations and schema, providing valuable caution.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the table/parameters, and the critical caveat about ack_mode/transacted. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 config-writing tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is written, to which file, and the overwrite behavior. It does not describe the return value or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, this is adequate. The caveat about ack_mode/transacted adds necessary context for correct use.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance about how ack_mode and transacted are treated (as documented mirror comments), which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. This extra explanation helps the agent understand the real effect of those parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Write or rotate the broker connection Config.toml for an existing project.' It clearly states what the tool does and includes an explicit 'Overwrites the existing Config.toml' warning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffold or add queue, which operate on different resources.

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 notes that the tool is for an existing project and that ack_mode/transacted are only mirror comments, implying that actual ack mode should be set via mq_set_ack_mode (a sibling tool). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the context strongly guides the user away from using this tool for setting effective ack mode.

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