m9k_config

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that changes are saved to a persistent file and only take effect after a restart. This provides critical behavioral context that annotations (like destructiveHint=false) do not cover, fully informing the agent of side effects.

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?

Two efficient sentences: the first states the action, the second details the persistence. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers core functionality and persistence but omits details like error handling or validation (e.g., invalid keys). For a tool with only two optional parameters, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that values are JSON-encoded (e.g., 'false', '15'), which is not evident from the schema alone, slightly aiding correct usage.

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 dual purpose: viewing or updating plugin configuration. It specifies the exact file path and effect timing, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other aspects like context or sessions.

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 explicitly says 'Without arguments, returns current config,' guiding the agent on when to read vs. write. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving room for ambiguity with sibling config-related tools.

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