config

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

With destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real context: the persistence target (kuruitsugizaki.json), the fact that a set mutates stored config, and the existence check returned for detected paths. It does not discuss permissions or failure behavior, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, then the mode semantics and the prohibition. Every sentence is functional and none is padding, even though it is a single dense paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape of the no-argument call ('every key with its value or the path detected for it, and whether that path exists'). All three call modes, the storage file, and operational guidance are covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke 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% and each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'key alone / key and value' mapping reinforces the schema's semantics but adds little beyond what is already written in the property descriptions.

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 names the resource concretely — the machine-local paths the server needs (FL, loopMIDI, FL's Hardware folder, preset libraries) persisted in kuruitsugizaki.json — and then spells out the three operating modes (list-all, read-one, set-one). It is specific about what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against siblings like fl_probe or fl_install; that differentiation is only implied.

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 explicit triggers ('call it first in a new install', 'whenever another tool answers that a key is not set') and an explicit prohibition with an alternative action ('Never guess a path or search the disk... ask the user where it is, then set it'). An agent knows both when to reach for it and what not to do instead.

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