Write private Provider overlay

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'does not modify Clash Verge by itself', discloses the confirmation requirement, and implies a user-approval gate. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a key limitation and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 six parameters and a mutation operation with confirmation gates, the description provides the essential confirmation value and one behavioral limitation, but it omits the meaning of critical_domains, config_path, and what a successful write returns (though an output schema exists). It is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps for a complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'exact_domains' (via 'exact domains'), 'enabled' (via 'optional Provider enablement'), and 'confirmation' (via the required literal string), but it ignores provider_id, config_path, and critical_domains. For a six-parameter tool, this is insufficient coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and names the resource ('private Provider overlay'), with precise content ('user-approved exact domains and optional Provider enablement'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it does not modify Clash Verge, making it the apply step vs preview.

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 clearly implies the prerequisite of user approval and explicitly states the requirement for mutation opt-in and a specific confirmation value. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., preview_provider_overlay) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full 5.

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