scaffold_editor_integration

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

The description discloses key behaviors: write-capability, default preview-only mode, the write parameter controlling disk write, and the return of a unified diff. This is sufficient given no annotations are present.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, behavioral note, parameter list, and return type. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, modes, parameter details, and return value adequately. No major gaps are apparent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a Parameters section that explains workspace, editor (with supported values), and write (with default and behavior). This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 previews or writes editor configurations for integrating the Matrix Scroll MCP server. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, its focus on editor configuration is distinct from the listed analysis and planning tools.

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 explains the preview vs write modes but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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