vigbrg_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, but it does not explain the confirmation flow, side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on success or failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler; the write nature and confirmation requirement are front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail needed for safe invocation.

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 4-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine what to put in 'param' or how to successfully complete the confirmation workflow.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for 'param', 'user_code', 'confirm_token', or 'confirmation_id'. The mention of 'requires confirmation' weakly hints at the confirmation parameters, but the required 'param' remains completely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb 'Configure' and names the resource 'Vigor bridge', making the tool's purpose clear. The parenthetical 'write' helps distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like vigbrg_status, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 phrase 'write — requires confirmation' implies this tool should be used for configuration changes to the Vigor bridge rather than status queries. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference alternative siblings.

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