mcs_reload_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions hot update without restart, the default path behavior when env_file is empty, and re-reading environment variables in pure env mode. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether some settings require a restart, error behavior, or permission requirements). This is a moderate gap for a config-reload tool.

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 concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter documentation follows in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague content. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and parameter semantics.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core functionality, parameter behavior, and the no-restart advantage. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., server running) or edge cases, but given the simple scope, it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains the only parameter env_file: it is optional, specifies the .env file path, and details what happens when left empty (uses startup path) and in pure environment variable mode (re-reads current env vars). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description, giving complete semantic clarity.

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: reload configuration (.env file or environment variables) without requiring a server restart. It specifies the verb (reload) and resource (config), and distinguishes from sibling tools like mcs_restart_instance by explicitly noting that no restart is needed. This makes it unambiguous which operation the tool performs.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: after modifying .env, call this tool for immediate hot update, and it explains the env_file parameter for switching config files. It implies it's an alternative to restarting, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it. This is adequate but could be more explicit about routing from alternatives.

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