optimize_descriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three actions (status, generate, save), the workflow, and the important consequence that a restart is required after saving. It does not detail all side effects or return behaviors, but the output schema presumably covers return values. This is more transparent than a simple 'update' 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 well-organized with a brief purpose statement, a categorized action list, and a numbered workflow. Every sentence provides useful information—no filler or redundancy. It is concise enough despite covering multiple actions.

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 moderate complexity (three actions, output schema exists). The description includes purpose, actions, workflow, and the restart requirement. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is likely in the output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the workflow. It explicitly shows action values ('generate', 'save', 'status'), the server parameter ('server="server_name"'), and the descriptions object format ({"tool1": "desc1", ...}). This gives complete semantics beyond the bare 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 states a clear verb + object: 'Optimize ToolMux tool descriptions'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_all_tools or get_tool_schema by focusing on improving descriptions rather than retrieving them.

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 an explicit numbered workflow: generate → review → save → restart. It explains when to use the tool by framing it as producing higher-quality descriptions than algorithmic versions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the workflow gives clear context for use.

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