configure_auto_reconnect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that settings are configured and a status message is returned, but it does not disclose whether changes apply immediately, persist across sessions, require an active connection, or affect in-progress reconnect attempts.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, an Args list covering each parameter, and a Returns line. Every line is informative and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a simple settings tool, the parameter coverage and return mention are adequate, and the output schema presumably covers the return shape. However, the description lacks behavioral and usage context: no side effects, no relation to cancel_reconnect_attempts, and no prerequisites. It is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully contextual one.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: enabled toggles the feature, max_attempts clarifies that 0 means infinite, and the delay parameters specify units and intended role. This goes well beyond the schema's type and default information.

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 configures auto-reconnect settings and enumerates the related parameters, so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling cancel_reconnect_attempts, but the focus on settings rather than attempts makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention cancel_reconnect_attempts or any condition that would make this tool inappropriate, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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