mdan_customize_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that values are merged, where they are stored (_mdan/custom/<agent>.yaml vs. <agent>.user.yaml), and important traits like versioning and git-ignoring. It omits undo/failure details, so not a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys action, layer options, file paths, versioning behavior, and merge semantics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key context an agent needs: what is customized, which layers exist, where values go, and how they are applied. Optional parameter details are left to the schema, which mostly covers them adequately.

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 about 63%, and most parameters already have explanatory descriptions. The description adds the useful merge semantic but does not clarify underdocumented parameters like menu or communication_style. A middle score is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Customize an agent without editing its file.' It also adds concrete layer distinctions (team vs. personal) and file paths, making the tool's role clear and distinguishing it from sibling state/memory/run tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs customization without directly editing configuration files. It also explains the two layer options. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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