config

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: warmup pre-downloads a model (~570 MB), setup_sync involves OAuth flow, and set persists a setting. Annotations idempotentHint=true but set and sync are not strictly idempotent, but description does not contradict annotations. Could mention side effects like overwriting existing settings.

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 well-structured with a header and action guide. It is reasonably concise but includes necessary detail. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating actions in the guide after the header) could be tightened.

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 has 3 parameters, 5 actions, and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains each action and parameter usage. It lacks error handling or return value details, but output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains action values, and for set it defines valid keys with types and an example. However, it does not clarify whether key/value are ignored for non-set actions (status, sync, warmup, setup_sync), which could cause confusion.

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 this tool handles server config, sync, and setup. It lists specific actions (status, sync, set, warmup, setup_sync) and distinguishes from sibling memory tools, making the purpose specific and non-overlapping.

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?

An ACTION GUIDE explicitly states when to use each action, including prerequisites for sync (sync_enabled=true + google_drive_client_id) and an example for set. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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