apiosk_configure

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructivHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the conditional 'QR code output when available' and the menu structure, but leaves 'actions' vague and does not clarify whether the menu itself can trigger mutating workflows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The slash-delimited 'wallet/pay/publish/data actions' is compact and slightly vague, but the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover side-effect behavior. Still, the description does not state a default section, whether a wallet must already exist, or what the 'actions' do, so an agent has to infer several invocation details from schema enums alone.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'funding instructions' and 'QR code output when available' give context to funding_provider and include_qr_data_url, and 'wallet/pay/publish/data actions' maps to section values. However, wallet_id and the relationship between section and funding_provider remain implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('structured Apiosk control menu for a wallet'), and it enumerates main contents: funding instructions, QR code output, and wallet/pay/publish/data actions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like apiosk_help or apiosk_show_wallet_funding, so it stops short of 5.

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 implies this is for presenting a wallet control menu, but it provides no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives or exclusions. With many sibling tools including apiosk_help, apiosk_payment_guide, and apiosk_show_wallet_funding, an agent is not told when apiosk_configure is the better choice.

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