lm_mcp_config

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety burden is partly carried. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: backup, conflict check, and digest-based apply safety. It still does not say exactly what gets overwritten or what permissions are required.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the workflow and authorize details. Every sentence carries 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?

Annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile and there is no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. But for a complex 6-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool, it leaves several parameters and the list/remove actions opaque, making it only adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It implies apply (preview/apply), expected_digest ('reuse preview digest'), and allowed_tools ('authorize grants exact tools'), but leaves the action enum values, config, and name unexplained.

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 states a specific verb pair (preview/apply) and resource (LM Studio mcp.json changes), plus a safety qualifier (backup and conflict check). It is clearly distinct from siblings like lm_mcp_probe and lm_mcp_call, though it does not 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?

It gives an operational sequence ('Reuse preview digest to apply') and a scoping rule for authorize, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over lm_mcp_probe/lm_mcp_call or when not to use it.

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