scf_set_control_materiality

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

With annotations only providing readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral detail: it's a write, requires ADMIN's own key (else 403), records the admin as approver, and clarifies that deciding a control is not material lets it be excluded or marked not_applicable.

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 dense but well-structured sentence that front-loads the write action and key requirement, then explains the parameter values, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the materiality decision, the reason requirement for certain cases, and the admin-key restriction. It could mention the reason length limit or the 400 error conditions, but is otherwise complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description repeats the material true/false/null semantics but adds no new syntax or format information beyond 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?

States a specific verb (set) and a specific resource (control materiality), and explains exactly what material means (true/false with reason, null for catalogue default). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like scf_set_control_basis_override or scf_set_target_maturity.

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?

Provides a clear condition for the null case ('null for the catalogue default (material at weighting 10)') and notes the write requires an admin key vs a platform key. It doesn't explicitly route to an alternative tool, but the context is very clear.

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