write_user_config

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

Discloses merge behavior preserving specific contexts, which is important. However, with no annotations, it should also mention error handling, permissions, or destructive potential. It partially mitigates but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds value. No fluff, but the structure could be 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 simple tool (one param, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description covers core aspects. However, it omits success/error behavior or prerequisites, which would enhance completeness.

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?

Adds critical context to the single parameter: specifies it must be a complete YAML string from the wizard with all sections. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'write' and resource 'user-config.yaml' produced by the first-run config wizard. It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_user_preferences by specifying it writes the full config file.

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?

Implies usage when updating config while preserving specialist_contexts and active_contexts, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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