ddflow_configure

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 discloses that `toml` APPENDS (mutates the file), that `set` edits in place, and that appending fails on duplicate tables. It also explains the read behavior (prints knobs, values, sources, descriptions). It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or exact output formatting, but the core mutating and failure behaviors are transparent.

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 moderately sized, including a practical example that aids understanding. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read or write...') and then details the two main modes. The example adds clarity but could be trimmed slightly; nevertheless, every sentence contributes to usage understanding.

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 a config tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases: reading all knobs, appending TOML, and editing via `set`. It explains failure on duplicate tables and shows a realistic usage pattern. It does not describe the exact format of the printed knobs or exit codes, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `toml` parameter with a full example and the append behavior, and by clarifying that `set` edits in place. The `filter` parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already describes it. Overall, the description enhances the schema's meaning for the key parameters.

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 'Read or write .ddflow/config.toml', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the configuration tool for the project, with no sibling performing similar read/write config operations. The verb is explicit and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear usage context: with no arguments it prints all knobs, and with `toml` it appends. It gives a concrete example of the typical use case (setting the test command) and notes that this is how a project is configured without a shell. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like ddflow_setup, leaving the exclusion criteria implicit.

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