Configure / diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: API keys are rejected and test:true sends a tiny request to the resolved model. However, it does not say whether settings changes persist, require restart, are validated, or what the diagnostics output includes, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then key constraints, with little waste. The sentence about test:true is well-placed at the end, though the parenthetical diagnostics list is slightly dense.

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 9-parameter, zero-required configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, API key exclusion, and test behavior. It still omits what diagnostics return, what each setting affects, persistence behavior, and how the model/provider resolution interacts with llmMode, so an agent lacks enough context to call it optimally.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for test, apiKeyEnv, and partially for model and question mode, but leaves baseUrl, llmMode, provider, outputDir, and sectionsPerCall unexplained beyond the schema's sparse enum hints. The description helps but does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 states a specific dual purpose: show diagnostics (IDE support, model selection, question display) or change settings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like archforge_start_project or archforge_status, though 'change settings' is broad enough that an agent may still have to infer which settings are mutable.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage by saying API keys are never accepted here and pointing to the environment variable named by apiKeyEnv, which is a valuable when-not-to-use hint. It also distinguishes diagnostics from configuration changes, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or state prerequisites for changing settings.

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