config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists actions like 'sources/option/sync/forget/whoami/version/pin/unpin/sessions/projects/delete_project' but does not explain what these actions do, whether they are read or write operations, or what side effects occur.

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 somewhat fragmented: it starts with a clear purpose sentence, then adds a note about sharing, then lists actions with an instruction about help. It is not overly long but could be more structured and focused.

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 the complexity of 12 parameters and multiple actions, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how to use the tool, what each action does, and what outputs to expect, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions the 'help' parameter ('help=true for details') and does not describe the purpose or usage of any other parameter.

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 states that the tool manages 'Project settings (openbox source options) + identity + session pin,' which gives a clear high-level purpose. However, it is not a single concise verb+resource statement, and the list of actions adds some clarity but also complexity.

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 provides guidance on when not to use this tool by noting that sharing is handled by separate tools (send/import, member). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it provide clear use cases.

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