Convert Assumption To Controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the side effect on control-level linkage, removal of the assumption from assumption_groups, dropping of empty groups, reverting of controls to not_implemented, and clarifies that underlying assumptions are not deleted.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and use case, followed by a compact and well-organized side-effect disclosure. Every sentence adds meaningful information; there is 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 mutation tool with complex side effects and an output schema present, the description covers the main behavior, the triggering condition, the affected entities, and the non-destructive aspect. An agent has enough context to 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%; model_id and assumption_id are minimally described but server_version has no schema description and is also absent from the tool description. The description reinforces the role of assumption_id through its behavioral text but adds no parameter-level meaning and completely ignores the undocumented required server_version parameter.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a violated or retired assumption to controls.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_assumption/edit_assumption and regenerate_controls by stating the conversion action and the control-generation outcome.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use when an assumption is no longer valid and the system owner needs to implement controls instead.' It gives a clear condition but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it falls just short of a 5.

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