set_runtime_accelerator

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It warns that applying may restart/disconnect the runtime and provides necessary post-conditions (connect, check GPU). This is helpful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by behavioral warning and post-conditions. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, side effects, and required follow-up. It is sufficient for the agent to use correctly, though it could briefly mention the 'apply' parameter's effect.

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% and already describes both parameters (accelerator and apply). The description adds only a general mention of 'such as T4 GPU', not significantly enhancing understanding over 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 clearly states the tool chooses an accelerator (e.g., T4 GPU) via the Colab browser. It provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_runtime or restart_runtime.

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 implies usage when an accelerator change is needed and prescribes a follow-up sequence (open connection, connect, check GPU). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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