editor_settings_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each operation does (e.g., 'Set an editor setting value'), but does not mention side effects, persistence, permissions, or error behavior. It does note the canonical call shape and compatibility alias, which is a minor behavioral detail, but overall it provides minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 structured as a compact list of operations with one-line explanations, front-loaded with a clear purpose. It also includes the canonical call shape in a single sentence, keeping the whole description terse and scannable.

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?

The description covers all operations, their parameters, and the call format, which is sufficient for a multi-op tool. It omits explicit usage guidelines, but the operations are self-explanatory, and an output schema exists to define returns. Thus it's mostly complete.

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?

The description explicitly names and defines parameters for each operation (e.g., 'get_setting(setting_name)', 'set_setting(setting_name, value)', 'list_settings(prefix="")'), which directly compensates for the schema's generic 'params' field. Since schema coverage is 0%, this descriptive detail is essential and well-provided.

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 purpose as 'Editor Settings and Configuration Management' and then enumerates four specific operations (get_setting, set_setting, list_settings, get_editor_paths), each with a clear verb and resource. This specificity distinguishes it from the many sibling *_manage tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other configuration or editor management tools. It implies usage through the listed operations, but lacks any conditional or alternative references, so an agent may not know if it should use this or a similar tool like config_manage.

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