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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing update semantics ('Omitted axes are left unchanged (merge, never rebuild)'), the disable=true clear-all behavior, and downstream effects like badges and notifications. The destructiveHint=false is not contradicted because the clear-all is an explicit, opt-in parameter and targets are re-settable configuration.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, behavioral effects, and update/clearing semantics. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 description covers the core behavior, the advisory/notification model, the non-enforcement property, and merge/disable semantics. Given the absence of an output schema, it need not explain return values; a minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether an individual axis can be removed without disabling all targets.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful cross-parameter semantics: omitted axes are preserved rather than reset, and disable=true clears all targets. It correctly avoids repeating per-parameter examples already present in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set advisory per-agent performance targets.' It further clarifies the tool's role in the Agent Performance module, distinguishing it from generic policy or configuration setters like set_governance_policies. No part of the description is a tautology.

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 signals when this tool is appropriate by stating the targets are 'advisory' and that 'nothing is gated at runtime.' This tells an agent not to use it for enforcement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give a precise when-not-to-use exclusion.

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