config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the three possible actions (read, write, validate) and outlines parameter constraints (e.g., appPath must be a workspace directory, not a file). It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but the disclosed behavior is adequate for a configuration tool.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details parameters. It uses capitalization and examples for clarity. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, required/optional parameters, and constraints. It does not describe return values or error handling, but for a config tool with clear actions, this is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail on outputs would improve it.

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 is empty, so the description provides all parameter documentation. It enumerates parameters (action, appPath, keys, patch, merge, schema_version) with types, constraints, and examples. This fully compensates for the missing schema and adds significant meaning.

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: 'Read, write, and validate .objidconfig configuration files.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. The sibling tools (allocate_id, analyze_workspace, authorization) deal with unrelated tasks, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 explicitly lists required parameters (action, appPath) with examples and constraints, and optional parameters with restrictions (read-only/write-only). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of .objidconfig files is unique enough to imply usage. No exclusions are mentioned.

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