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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it can only lower the effective RPM, never raises it, and never affects billing. It also explains interaction with Burst Protect and points to get_project for reading the current value. This adds significant context to the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations.

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 detailed but each sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second clarifies limitations, the third explains Burst Protect interaction, the fourth points to get_project, and the fifth mentions access requirements. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the operation's purpose, constraints, interactions with other features, where to read the current value, and access requirements. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the `rpmCeiling` parameter (integer or null, minimum 1, meaning set or clear), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds contextual value by explaining the ceiling's purpose and effects, but it does not add new details about the parameter itself 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Set or clear a self-set ceiling') and specifies the resource and scope ('this project's own effective live-traffic RPM (Traffic shaping)'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning the RPM ceiling, which is unique among other set_* 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 description provides a clear when-to-use scenario ('for when your origin can't take the throughput your plan grants') and explains the constraint that it can only lower RPM. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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