local_ydb_apply_auth_hardening

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description mentions mutation (apply/restart) and plan-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential impact of restart (e.g., service interruption) or the exact output format.

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 concise: two sentences that convey purpose, usage prerequisites, and behavior without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 an action tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, plan vs apply mode, and prerequisite. Missing return value description but overall adequate.

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 covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: the confirm parameter behavior and the utility of configPath for switching without restart, going beyond schema descriptions.

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's action: apply a reviewed hardened YDB config file and restart local-ydb. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it should be used after preparing and reviewing the config, and mentions the confirm flag for actual apply vs plan-only.

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 explicitly says to use only after preparing and reviewing the config, and explains that without confirm=true it returns a plan. This provides clear usage context, though it does not name specific alternatives.

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