cmake_configure

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that changing a manual profile's generator deletes and recreates the build directory, and that per-execution errors are returned.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose and output front-loaded before the caveat about build directory recreation. No filler, though it is terse rather than optimally structured with headings.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. The remaining gaps are the undocumented timeout parameter and the absent usage workflow, which keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'profiles' is the selection list to configure, but says nothing about the 'timeout' object (idle/total seconds), leaving half the parameters undocumented at the top level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure selected profiles') and notes the return content (build/database paths and per-execution errors). It clearly sits between cmake_profiles and cmake_build, though it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives cmake_profiles, cmake_build, or cmake_test. The reader can infer that 'selected profiles' must come from cmake_profiles, but nothing states the workflow or prerequisites.

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