config

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

The description discloses behavioral traits for each action: sync triggers manual sync, warmup pre-downloads model, setup_sync authenticates via OAuth. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which is consistent with most actions. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing side effects and prerequisites.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured with an action guide. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each section serves a purpose. Minor redundancy but overall efficient.

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 (multiple actions, config changes, OAuth), the description covers most aspects. It explains actions and their effects. An output schema exists, so return values are documented separately. Minor gap: not all possible config keys for 'set' are listed, but the examples suffice.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains the 'action' parameter with a detailed guide, and for the 'set' action, it lists valid keys and provides examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Server config, sync, and setup' and lists specific actions (status, sync, set, warmup, setup_sync). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mainly memory-related, making this tool unique for configuration tasks.

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 an explicit action guide with when to use each action, including prerequisites for sync (sync_enabled=true + google_drive_client_id). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but sibling tools are in different domains, so guidance is clear enough.

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