daemon/reload-config

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the grant requirement (`allowed: true`, no unprivileged mode), the strict validate-then-apply atomicity (a misspelled key means nothing changes and an error is returned), and the side effect that sessions of removed or re-tokened users are closed, possibly the caller's own. It also states the return is free text and that it takes no parameters.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and nearly every clause carries distinct information (files, affected settings, auth requirement, validation semantics, side effects, restart caveat). It is dense as a single run-on paragraph, so readability is slightly below ideal, but there is little filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return is free text listing what changed. Combined with the disclosed auth requirement, atomicity, session-closure side effects, and restart boundary, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', which is consistent with the empty schema. There is no further parameter meaning to add.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (re-reads mcpd's config files) and enumerates exactly what gets applied: users/tokens, per-user grants, rate limits, tool timeouts. It names the concrete files (daemon.yaml, users.yaml, mcp-sudo.yaml) and is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which touch daemon 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?

Explicitly delineates when this is the right tool versus alternatives: the files are edited on the host via linuxctl and this only reloads them, server settings (port, TLS, worker.containerized, Docker socket) still require a restart, and grants should be verified afterwards with auth/sudo-rules. Both boundaries and follow-up routing are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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