local_ydb_write_dynamic_auth_config

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals the dry-run behavior: without confirm=true, it only plans the write. This adds significant behavioral context. It also clarifies that the tool actually writes a file, which is consistent with the annotations. The description does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a critical usage guideline. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior (write vs. plan) and usage sequence (after SID selection). It does not explain the tokenHostPath or profile/configPath parameters, but those are documented in the schema. The description is complete enough for effective use.

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 each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description reinforces the purpose of confirm (plan vs. write) and sid (chosen SID), but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide. Hence, baseline score of 3.

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 specifies 'write the text-proto dynamic-node auth token file needed for mandatory-auth startup', clearly stating the action (write) and the resource (dynamic-node auth token file). It also provides context by mentioning 'after choosing the SID for auth hardening', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like local_ydb_prepare_auth_config that may prepare configs.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use after choosing the SID for auth hardening'. It also explains the conditional behavior of the confirm parameter: 'without confirm=true this returns the planned file write only'. However, it does not directly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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