configure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It details the behavior of num_speakers modes (auto, forced N, MIN-MAX), the matching rule for labels, the fallback to generic names, the semantics of passing empty strings, and the return of the active configuration. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically explains parameters. Each sentence provides necessary information: examples, edge cases, and default behavior. There is no filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the complexity of the two parameters.

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?

The tool has no annotations and a sparse schema, but the description fully compensates. It explains all parameter semantics, the tool's persistence effect, and its return value. Output schema exists, so the absence of return format details is not a gap. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters and does. It defines valid formats for num_speakers with examples, explains labels structure and ordering, and describes conditional behavior. This exceeds the schema's minimal type-only information.

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 the specific action 'Adjust diarization for FUTURE clips', clearly identifying the resource (diarization settings) and scope (future clips). This distinguishes configure from siblings like process_folder, process_audio, and status, which handle processing or retrieval rather than configuration.

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 clearly indicates that this tool affects future clips, providing the context of when to use it. It also explains how to leave a setting unchanged (pass ""), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'FUTURE' qualifier gives solid contextual guidance.

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