configure_workload

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds important behavioral facts: it writes only configuration, preserves existing workloads and experiments, returns the next discovery step, and never executes. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with the most important fact: it writes but does not execute. Every sentence earns its place, covering non-execution, preservation behavior, return value, and update guidance without fluff.

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?

For a complex 13-parameter tool with low schema description coverage, the description gives a good high-level lifecycle but omits guidance on the many optional nested configuration objects and prerequisites. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for 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?

Schema description coverage is only 15%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at operation='replace' and the configuration_id parameter, but does not explain the many other complex parameters such as argv, oracle, identity, requirements, or execution_protocol. It also refers to 'current configuration_id' while the actual parameter is 'expected_configuration_id', which could mislead an agent.

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 a specific verb ('Write'), a clear resource ('one validated named workload'), and a scope ('without executing it'). It also distinguishes itself from execution-focused sibling tools by emphasizing that it never executes the command and only writes project workload configuration.

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 gives clear context: call this to write/update a workload configuration, not to execute it. It also provides explicit operation guidance ('Use operation='replace' with the current configuration_id to update an existing workload'). It does not enumerate alternatives or state when-not-to-use relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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