nero_configure

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

Description discloses that changes occur 'at runtime' (immediate effect?), but does not detail side effects (e.g., does it restart the agent? Are changes persistent?). No annotations provided, so description carries burden, but lacks depth on mutation behavior.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the configurable options. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Description is minimal for a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema. It does not mention return values, confirmation of update, error conditions (e.g., if agent does not exist), or whether all parameters are optional beyond 'agent'. Lacks guidance on behavior for omitted fields.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., no explanation of how 'replace' works for tags or system_prompt. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an agent's runtime configuration, listing specific fields that can be changed. Verb 'update' and resource 'agent configuration' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like nero_spawn (creation) or nero_kill (termination).

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?

Description implies use when you need to modify an existing agent's settings, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like nero_spawn for creation or nero_reset for resetting. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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