electron_configure_deep_linking

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds detail on what is generated (platform-specific configuration, builder configs), which is consistent and adds context beyond the annotations.

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 a single paragraph of ~30 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides specific, actionable information. No wasted words.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool produces: protocol registration, URL handling modes, platform-specific configs, and builder integration. This is complete for a config generation tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'protocol registration' and 'routes' implicitly, but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a complete deep linking setup for Electron, listing specific outputs (protocol registration, URL handling, platform configs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like electron_configure_auto_update or electron_scaffold_project.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it. However, the purpose is well-defined, and the list of sibling tools implicitly delineates its scope.

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