config_regenerate

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the default-safe behavior (dry run), the return form ('returns the planned changes as text'), and precisely what is lost on write ('discards hand edits in those generated files'). That is exactly the destructive consequence an agent needs before flipping dryRun.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: source/target first, then the safety default and its inverse, then the path escape hatch. Front-loaded and every clause carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what a dry run returns and what a write does. For a 2-parameter, non-open-world tool, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by stating the condition under which projectPath matters (server not running from the project root) and restating dryRun's default and destructive consequence in workflow terms.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Regenerate the master config files in .flisk/.flisk-out/') and its source of truth ('from .flisk/project.json'), which cleanly separates it from config_verify and config_explain. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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 explicit conditional guidance: dry run is the default, set dryRun to false to actually write, and set projectPath when the server is not running from the project root. It stops short of naming alternatives (config_verify, config_explain) as when-to-use routing, so it is clear context rather than full alternative guidance.

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