Write local failover config

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that it requires mutation opt-in and a specific confirmation token. This context is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. Every piece of information is useful: the action and the prerequisite confirmation, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adds the key mutation requirement. It could elaborate on overwrite behavior or the meaning of 'auto-discovered', but the core purpose and invocation condition are covered.

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 has no descriptions for the parameters, and the description only clarifies the 'confirmation' parameter by specifying the exact expected value. The 'config_path' parameter remains semantically vague, though its purpose is somewhat inferred from the description.

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 the specific verb 'write' and identifies the resource as 'auto-discovered local config', clearly stating the tool's function. The title reinforces that this writes a failover config, distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulate_failover or install_failover.

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 provides an explicit usage requirement: mutation opt-in and the confirmation value 'WRITE_LOCAL_CONFIG'. This tells the agent when the tool can be invoked and what to provide, though it does not mention alternatives or when to avoid using it.

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