lbb_configure

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it mentions mutation, in-place evolution, version bumps, tombstoning for removed types/relations, and the effect on data (old records remain readable). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long and dense, listing many actions in a single paragraph without clear separation. While it contains necessary detail, it could be more concise and structured (e.g., using bullet points) to improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main actions and their behaviors but omits explanations for several parameters (e.g., 'format', 'desired_mode', 'confirm_empty'). It partially completes the picture but has gaps.

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 coverage is only 29% (low). While the description elaborates on the 'action' parameter and some ops, many parameters like 'format', 'shapes', 'ontology', 'entity_types', and 'rules' are not explained in the description text. The schema itself contains inline descriptions for some, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Mutate stored graph configuration.' It then enumerates specific actions (define_ontology, evolve_ontology, publish_schema, define_rules) with detailed explanations, distinguishing it from other lbb_ tools like lbb_query or lbb_commit.

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 explains when to use each action variant (e.g., 'define_ontology' to create a new ontology, 'evolve_ontology' for in-place changes). While it provides context on usage, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to sibling tools like lbb_commit or lbb_ground.

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