local_ydb_prepare_auth_config

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds that without confirm=true, it only returns the planned write, clarifying the non-destructive nature. However, it does not fully disclose side effects when confirm=true (e.g., file overwrite) or any prerequisites, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses active voice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the usage flow and the confirm behavior, it lacks explanation of the return value format (no output schema), what 'hardened YDB config' entails, and prerequisites (e.g., static-node config being present). This leaves some gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter, such as format or constraints.

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 hardened YDB config from the static-node config, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is a preparation step before local_ydb_write_dynamic_auth_config and local_ydb_apply_auth_hardening.

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 tells when to use the tool ('before local_ydb_write_dynamic_auth_config and local_ydb_apply_auth_hardening') and explains the effect of the confirm flag. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides that guidance.

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