Open the Informer configuration page

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it opens a form on 127.0.0.1 in the user's browser, returns a URL to pass on, and that saving verifies keys against the API and applies changes immediately. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and environment interaction.

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 comprehensive yet efficient: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concrete examples and explicit exclusions. It is longer than average but every clause serves a purpose, and the structure guides the agent from what it does, to when to use it, to what to expect.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, use cases, exclusions, behavior, and return value. The agent has everything needed to invoke and handle the tool correctly without further guidance.

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 zero parameters in the schema, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter information needed; the description instead covers the tool's behavior and usage, which is more relevant here.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Open the Informer settings, configuration or setup page.' It enumerates specific use cases (first-time setup, adding a client, rotating API keys, fixing 401 errors) and contrasts with the CRUD-heavy sibling tools, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 declares this is 'the single answer to every request about configuring this server' and lists concrete scenarios. It also names alternatives to avoid: searching the filesystem, reading installation directory, running setup commands, or asking the user for a key in chat, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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