agent_configure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the operation is non-restarting, preserves conversation context, and mutates model/reasoning settings, with a useful Cursor-specific constraint. It does not mention failure modes or side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then the method, then the special Cursor caveat. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 three parameters and available output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation context, the non-restart behavior, and the key harness-specific coupling. It could add a bit more guidance on failure conditions or where to get valid model identifiers, but the essential calling context is present.

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 schema already documents model and reasoning_effort with 'omit means no change' semantics, and 67% of parameters have descriptions. The description adds the cross-parameter Cursor caveat that reasoning_effort must be changed together with model, but it does not provide value formats or allowed model identifiers beyond what the schema implies.

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 identifies the action (change model/reasoning effort), the resource (already-started agent sessions for multiple harnesses), and the key constraint (no restart, context preserved). This distinguishes it from agent_launch and other session-oriented siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: target existing sessions, avoid restarting, and use each harness's standard CLI model operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but '起動済み' and '再起動せず' effectively separate it from launch/restart flows.

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