customize_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions actions like set_override and define_custom but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or scope implications beyond the parameter descriptions. The description is minimal and does not provide behavioral context beyond the action list.

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 at two sentences, but the second sentence is a list that could be optimized (e.g., incorporating into a single line). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for a quick read.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, the effect of each action, scope behavior, or how actions interact. The external doc reference leaves key questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little extra meaning: 'Actions: set_override, ...' is a repetition of the enum, and 'Per-action args listed in slop-mcp docs' is a vague reference. It does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Override tool descriptions, define custom tools.' It lists the specific actions available, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_mcps or execute_tool, as it is uniquely focused on customizing tool definitions.

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 context by listing actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_mcps or run_slop. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, making it adequate but not explicit.

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