Plan LM Studio defaults update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'Shows the exact... fields that would be changed' and 'Makes no changes,' which aligns with and reinforces the read-only nature. No contradictions. It adds context about what is displayed.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action, the second clarifies no changes are made. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations clarifying safety, the description is largely complete. It explains what is shown (the defaults file and changed fields) and that no changes are made. It does not describe the return format, but for a preview tool, the context is sufficient.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It mentions 'candidate' in the description but does not explicitly define 'candidateId' or its format. The parameter is simple (single required string), but the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool shows the exact LM Studio per-model defaults file and fields that would be changed for a candidate, and that it makes no changes. This specifies the verb (shows) and resource (defaults file and fields) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'promote_candidate_to_lm_studio' which actually performs the promotion.

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?

By stating 'Makes no changes,' the description implies this is a preview tool to be used before applying changes. Among sibling tools, 'promote_candidate_to_lm_studio' is the counterpart for actual changes, providing context for when to use each. However, the description does not explicitly state 'when to use' or 'when not to use.'

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