Configure spy capture and GUI

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial non-structured context: omitted settings are preserved, resetFilters clears filters while preserving pause/history, and pausing/filtering does not unblock remotes or alter network delivery. It also discloses required preconditions (active-client, explicit-mutation-approval) and that permanent observer/hook state changes.

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 critical 'WRITES LIVE GAME STATE' warning, then scope, then behavior. Slightly bloated because the inline Signature block restates the input schema field-for-field, which the agent can already read, costing it a fifth point but not much readability.

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 7-param, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, engine branching, preservation/reset semantics, side-effect boundaries ('does not unblock remotes'), return content, and a failure recovery pointer to tool-schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema carries the field-level meaning. The description still adds cross-field semantics the schema can't express — omitted fields are preserved, resetFilters ordering, the Cobalt/Ketamine acceptance split, and per-engine applicability of GUI fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and scope: 'Configures an already-running spy without restarting or expiring IDs.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the lifecycle starter by stating 'Reads/configuration never load a spy; start it with remote-spy first.' An agent can tell it apart from remote-spy/ensure-remote-spy without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (patch filters, pause/resume, resize history, GUI control), names the prerequisite alternative ('start it with remote-spy first'), and states an engine-specific exclusion ('Cobalt accepts capture/buffer settings but rejects Ketamine GUI settings'). Nothing is left to inference.

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