plan_configure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it persists settings, merges services by default, and requires user-provided IDs. However, it does not describe side effects like overwriting vs merging existing settings beyond services, or error handling.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second specifies what to pass, and the third gives behavioral and usage notes. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the key context (when to call, what to pass, what it does) but is missing details about return values, error conditions, and idempotency. The export_dir parameter is unexplained. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 high (80%) with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds context for root_page_id/url and services, and notes the default merging behavior for merge_services. However, export_dir has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description, leaving a gap.

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 persists per-user workspace settings and specifies it is NOT in the repo .env, distinguishing its scope. It directly links to sibling tool plan_status, providing context for when this tool is needed.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call after plan_status when root_page_id is missing and includes strong guidance to ask the user for their root page and never invent IDs, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules.

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