engine_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Effective ... configuration' implies a computed read, and the merge-patch behavior is disclosed, but the ambiguity that matters is left open: is the patch applied persistently or is this a preview? Nor does it confirm the operation is non-destructive. Useful context, meaningful gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core function stated first and the workflow hint second. Every clause contributes either scope, valid values, or a usage rule.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input side adequately but omits the return shape entirely. Since the tool's stated purpose is discovering tunable parameter names, a sentence on what the configuration object looks like (nested key paths, units, defaults) would materially help an agent use the result.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it enumerates the preset values and labels config_patch a JSON merge patch. It never explains what the presets mean (pf vs ekf vs wcl), gives no patch format example, and does not say what a null patch yields. The enum-like preset list is the main value added.

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?

Names a specific resource (effective engine configuration) scoped to a preset, and enumerates the four valid presets inline (pf, pf-nomap, ekf, wcl), which the schema does not. It also states the merge-patch capability. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like simulate_scenario or list_scenarios, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives a concrete use case and a sequencing rule: call this to discover tunable parameter names before writing a config_patch. That is real routing guidance rather than a restatement. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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