convert_assumption_to_controls

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

Discloses side effects in detail: removal from assumption_groups, dropping empty groups, reverting controls to not_implemented, and that underlying assumptions are not deleted. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with main action, side effects clearly listed. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Description covers purpose, usage, and important side effects, making it complete for a conversion tool.

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 67%, already describes model_id and assumption_id. Description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, so stays at baseline 3.

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 action ('Convert') and the resource ('assumption to controls'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_assumption or delete_control.

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Explicitly says 'Use when an assumption is no longer valid and the system owner needs to implement controls instead,' providing clear context for when to use this tool.

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