configure_montecarlo

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

The description discloses that it returns a config_id and is non-destructive (configuration only). This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) and adds a small extra detail about the return value beyond the annotation set.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Configure') and includes the key outcome ('return a config_id'). It is concise without omitting essential information.

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 complex schema with many parameters, the high-level description is sufficient because the schema carries the detailed semantics. It mentions the core function and output, making it complete for its purpose, though it omits specifics like mismatch handling that are covered elsewhere.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The top-level description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline for this dimension.

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 the tool's purpose: configuring a Monte Carlo analysis with component tolerances and returning a config_id for later execution. It distinguishes from siblings like run_montecarlo (execution) and configure_sweep (sweep setup).

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 usage as a setup step before running ('for later execution'), which functionally separates it from run_montecarlo. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect explicit guideline.

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