Metis — Write User Config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the merge behavior and preservation of specialist_contexts and active_contexts, but does not mention permissions, error handling, side effects, or what happens if the config does not exist.

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 plus an Args section, efficiently conveying purpose and key behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more structured, but overall 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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meaning. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., wizard must have run) and does not differentiate usage from similar write tools like write_user_preferences.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter. The description's Args section adds meaning by specifying that yaml_content should be 'Complete YAML string as produced by the wizard (all sections)', but does not provide format constraints, size limits, or examples.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'the full user-config.yaml produced by the first-run config wizard'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user_config' (read) and 'write_user_preferences' (partial write) by specifying it writes the complete config.

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 implies the tool is used after the first-run config wizard and mentions merging behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_user_preferences' or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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