dashy_key

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

The description explicitly discloses that dashy_set_key performs a 'complete replacement of that key, not a merge,' which is crucial behavior beyond a simple 'set' operation. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is essential. It also clarifies that get/set operate on 'top-level config keys,' setting expectations about scope.

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 compact, with two bullet-like lines per operation. The opening 'dashy key operations on Dashy' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operations and their parameters. It could mention error handling or return values, but the non-merge behavior is a key completeness factor. Sibling tools are not addressed, but the scope is clear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each operation's parameters: key, filename, value, and the allowed top-level keys (pageInfo, appConfig, sections, pages). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema which only shows operation and arguments.

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 opens with 'dashy key operations on Dashy,' which is vague, but then specifies two operations: 'dashy_get_key' to get a top-level key (pageInfo, appConfig, sections, or pages) and 'dashy_set_key' to replace it. This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the 'top-level' scope helps distinguish it from sibling tools, although it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like dashy_config or dashy_section. The description only says 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters,' which is an invocation instruction, not a usage guideline.

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