makemkv_set_config

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 that updates are 'not persisted to disk', which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a critical behavioral detail ('not persisted to disk') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description's main gap is the lack of parameter explanation and insufficient behavioral details for a mutation tool. It covers the transient nature but misses other aspects like error conditions or usage context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, while the input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (the schema's 'input' property lacks a description). Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'input' entails, leaving parameters largely undocumented. The baseline is adjusted due to low coverage, but no value is added.

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 action ('Update a config value') and specifies the resource ('config value'), with the additional detail 'at runtime (not persisted to disk)' distinguishing it from persistent configuration changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'makemkv_get_config', which is a read operation, though the verb 'Update' implies a write operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'makemkv_get_config' for reading config values or other tools for related tasks. It mentions the runtime nature but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for usage.

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