Configure account-wide settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description complements these by explaining the behavioral nuances of gitMode (e.g., 'ask' never pushes silently) and the planLimits blend tracking mechanics (FBMCPF-278/279), adding significant context about what the settings actually do. No contradictions.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and override note, then systematically covers gitMode and planLimits, ending with a practical instruction. No fluff, well-paced for the complexity involved.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, including nested objects, the description covers the two most intricate parameters in depth. The other three are reasonably described in the schema, and there is no output schema requiring explanation. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could briefly note that padSync, telemetry, and defaultStandard are also handled.

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?

With schema description coverage at 60%, the description compensates for the two parameters lacking schema descriptions (gitMode and planLimits) by fully explaining their meaning and usage. The remaining parameters (padSync, telemetry, defaultStandard) already have descriptions in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds value where needed.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Set', the resource 'FeatureBoard's account-wide settings', and the scope ('applied to every project that doesn't set its own override via set_git_config'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling set_git_config. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (set_git_config) and the condition for using each ('every project that doesn't set its own override'), and also instructs the agent to 'Ask the user about gitMode during onboarding'. This provides clear when‑to‑use direction and a concrete usage step.

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