lbb_configure

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not strictly destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that schema publication is atomic and does not validate the whole graph, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important details like error handling, rollback behavior, or permission requirements.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first stating the overall purpose and the second adding a specific behavioral note. No redundant information. However, it could be slightly better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of the three actions, especially given the tool's complexity.

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 (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to construct the 'ops' array for different operations, or cover error scenarios. An agent would need to infer much from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not. It mentions the 'action' enum values but offers no additional meaning for the 'ops' array, 'graph', 'branch', or other parameters. The schema itself provides some descriptions (e.g., for ops items), but the description fails to add value beyond that.

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 verb 'mutate' and the resource 'graph configuration', and lists three specific actions (define_ontology, evolve_ontology, publish_schema). This distinguishes it from siblings like lbb_commit (data mutations) and lbb_search (queries). However, it does not elaborate on the unique purpose of each action, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides a specific behavioral note for publish_schema (atomic activation, no full graph validation) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to evolve vs. define an ontology. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent has little support for choosing this tool over siblings.

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