set_guardrail_preferences

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

The description discloses that hard-coded limits are immutable and that this tool only affects notification behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so description adds context about what is not changeable.

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: the first is a clear title-like statement of purpose, the second adds essential behavioral nuance. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 configuration tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it does not do. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents two of three parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 configures guardrail notification thresholds (specific verb and resource) and distinguishes it from the hard-coded limits that cannot be changed, which differentiates it from siblings like run_guardrail.

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 explains it controls notifications, implying basic usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternative tools among siblings.

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