customize_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists action names and parameter cues, without explaining side effects, permissions, or impact on tool definitions. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies system 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?

The description is very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second lists actions. It is front-loaded and efficient, though some might desire more structure or detail.

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, multiple actions, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain how to use each action, what the tool returns, or provide a workflow. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks actionable context.

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%, with each parameter already described adequately in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing the action enum values, which are already in the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states that the tool is for overriding tool descriptions and defining custom tools, listing the specific actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_mcps or execute_tool, which have different purposes.

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 lists available actions but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and actions, but no guidance on when not to use it or which other tools to consider.

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