platform_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists actions and their short descriptions (e.g., update_settings modifies settings), but does not disclose side effects, whether updates are destructive or merge, permission requirements, or response behavior. The 'modify settings' is vague and does not explain impact.

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 reasonably concise but front-loaded with a generic 'Arch Build' introduction that doesn't directly serve the tool's purpose. The actionable part is the 'Manage project configuration' and action list, which is fine. Could be trimmed to be more focused.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema and only minimal parameter descriptions, the description lacks essential context. It does not clarify what settings or LLM configuration contain, how updates apply, or what success/failure looks like. An agent would need additional information to invoke actions correctly, especially update_settings.

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 67%, with projectId and settings described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats action names. The actions themselves are self-explanatory via enum, but settings structure remains unspecified. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage, but description does not compensate.

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 states the tool manages project configuration and lists specific actions (get_settings, update_settings, get_llm_config, update_llm_config). It clearly identifies the resource and operation, and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on projects, versions, deployments, etc. However, it includes an extraneous 'Arch Build' intro sentence that adds noise.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for configuration, but does not mention any exclusions or comparison to sibling tools like platform_projects or platform_versions. The agent must infer when configuration actions are appropriate.

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