scf_set_control_basis_override

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavior, and it does: ADMIN authorization is required, null also wipes the stored reason, and a 404 is returned when the control lacks a scope record. No statement of reversibility or rate limits, but the added context is substantive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the verb, the write/admin qualifier, the value domain, the clear behavior, and the 404 condition. Dense and efficient, with only mild parenthetical compression.

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 four-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the override/clear semantics, and the key error case, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe the response body, though one is not required by the absence of an output schema.

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 the schema already documents each parameter, including basis enum values and the reason requirement. The description echoes the mcr/dsr/null choice but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (override) and a precisely scoped resource: one control's derived obligation basis. It notes the effect of an override (mcr or dsr) and the clearing behavior, letting an agent distinguish it from sibling writers like scf_set_framework_basis and scf_set_scope_override.

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?

Explicitly gates the tool with 'write — ADMIN role' and explains the two operating modes (set an override vs. pass null to clear and re-derive). It does not name the closest alternatives, so it stops just short of the top band.

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