config_init

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it delivers: it discloses the default write location ('resolved config path') and the overwrite guard ('will not overwrite unless force is true'). It does not cover edge-case behavior such as what happens if the file already exists without force, but the core safety semantics are clear.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and default behavior front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple optional-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what, why, where, and the no-overwrite guard. Minor gaps remain around return/output behavior and the no-force file-exists case, but these are partly covered by the schema's maxChars parameter.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of path ('resolved config path') and force ('will not overwrite unless force is true') but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Write'), resource ('starter config.json'), and source ('from config.example.json'), with the user-facing purpose 'so the user can fill it in'. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like config_status or the API call tools.

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 phrase 'so the user can fill it in' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named (e.g., config_status for checking an existing config). Usage context must be inferred.

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