Alcove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the merge/patch behavior ('unmentioned settings are preserved'), the target file ('alcove.toml'), and the relationship to global defaults ('override global defaults'). It lacks explicit error handling or return value documentation, but covers the critical behavioral traits for safe invocation.

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 four-sentence description is perfectly front-loaded: purpose (sentence 1), configurable fields (sentence 2), merge semantics (sentence 3), and prerequisites (sentence 4). Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted words.

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 100% schema coverage and moderate complexity (5 parameters with partial update semantics), the description is complete. It addresses the file location, partial update behavior, and prerequisite workflow (init_project) without needing to duplicate the well-documented parameter details from the schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by framing the parameters as overrides of 'global defaults' and grouping them conceptually (core, team, public docs, diagram format), which helps the agent understand the configuration hierarchy beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Create or update per-project settings in alcove.toml,' providing a specific verb, resource, and location. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'init_project' by clarifying that this tool configures settings for existing projects (requiring init_project to be run first if the project doesn't exist).

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 explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Run init_project first if the project does not yet exist,' clearly delineating when to use the sibling tool versus this one. It also explains the partial update semantics ('Only the fields you specify are changed'), which guides the agent on how to invoke it for incremental changes.

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