scf_set_control_procedure

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only/non-destructive; the description adds material context beyond them: required permission level (editor+), a concrete failure condition (400 on invalid document state), the null-unlink semantics, and the downstream side effect that a later edit returns the document to review while the link and procedure_document_status persist.

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 the core action and its unlink variant, then the constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permission requirement, validation failure mode, null behavior, and post-condition side effect. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it clarifies document_id's dual role (a UUID links, null unlinks) and the approval/published constraint on that ID, plus reinforcing the relationship between scf_id and document_id that the schema only hints at.

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 (link/set) and resource (a control's procedure document), and explicitly covers both directions: link with an ID, unlink with null. An agent can distinguish this setter from sibling setters like scf_set_control_materiality or scf_set_control_basis_override without opening any schema.

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?

Explains clearly when the operation applies and the precondition that gates success (document must be the org's procedure, approved or published, else 400). It does not name a competing tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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