airstrings_sdk_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add what they cannot: that no API key or secret is returned, that the output is safe to show the user, commit, and embed, and that the cross-environment key behavior means no production key is needed. These are substantive behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Two dense but front-loaded sentences; the safety/secret framing leads and the use case plus key-behavior note follow. It is efficient, though the long parenthetical enumerations of returned fields make it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the concrete fields and artifacts returned (IDs, public keys, protection, per-platform initializers). Combined with the safety and auth notes, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so the single 'env' parameter is already fully documented, including its default to production. The description references 'one environment' but adds no syntax or resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: returning public, non-secret SDK setup values for one environment, and it enumerates exactly what comes back (org/project/env IDs, Ed25519 public keys, protection state, initializers per platform). This distinguishes it from siblings such as airstrings_env_list or airstrings_init without needing to open their schemas.

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?

It gives a clear use condition: 'Use it when wiring the AirStrings SDK into an app.' It also preempts a common auth question by explaining that any project API key works and a staging key returns production's config. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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