set_log_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the effect on log output volume and its troubleshooting value. It does not cover persistence or broader side effects, but for a simple setter this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then adding the level list and warning. Every sentence contributes value; no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and usage caveats. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by listing the levels in order of verbosity (emergency to debug), which clarifies the semantic ordering of the enum values and the practical impact of choosing a level.

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 sets the server logging level and controls log verbosity. It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('server logging level'), and is easily distinguished from siblings, which handle document/LSP operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to control verbosity and troubleshoot issues) and includes a caveat that increasing verbosity may generate large output. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose.

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