sw_add_configuration

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds conceptual context about configurations being variants, but does not disclose operational behavior such as duplicate-name handling, default activation, or effects on existing configurations.

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 front-loaded sentence with concrete examples and no wasted text. It is perhaps terse for a six-parameter mutation tool, but structurally clean.

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?

With six parameters, only 50% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully explain configuration creation. It omits activation behavior, suppression semantics, and duplicate-name implications that an agent would need.

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 examples ('M4' with hole diameter 4.5, '7 inch' with a longer arm) add useful insight into how 'name' and 'values' relate to dimension overrides. However, it does not explain 'activate', 'suppress', or 'description', and schema coverage for those parameters is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a configuration (variant)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sw_activate_configuration and sw_delete_configuration by verb, although it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative configuration tools. Usage is only implied by 'Add a configuration', with examples illustrating variants rather than selection criteria.

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