local_ydb_write_dynamic_auth_config

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

Annotations declare a write operation, and the description adds that without confirm=true it only plans, revealing two-phase commit behavior. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the operation's side effects.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and key constraint.

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 full parameter descriptions in schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspect (plan vs execute). Output not described, but not critical for a write tool without output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirm parameter's role in planning vs writing, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Clearly states the tool writes the dynamic-node auth token file needed for mandatory-auth startup, and specifies it is used after choosing the SID for auth hardening. This distinguishes it from siblings like local_ydb_prepare_auth_config.

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?

Explicitly says to use after choosing the SID for auth hardening and explains the confirm flag behavior for plan-only vs actual write. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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