select_compliance_frameworks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses side effects: auto-remediation in the background, auto-mapping of controls, exclusion by taxonomy, and suggestion/application of new entities. It also explains that the response includes auto_remediate_jobs that run on their own and can be re-triggered later with auto_remediate, plus the PRO tier requirement.

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 a single paragraph but well-organized: purpose first, then side effects, then related tools. Every sentence adds substantive detail, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points or section breaks. It avoids fluff and remains efficient given the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (auto-remediation, background jobs, tier requirement) and the lack of annotations, the description covers all critical behavioral context. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to describe return values. It also addresses workflow integration with sibling tools, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 67%: model_id and framework_ids have descriptions, while server_version is missing. The description reinforces that framework IDs can be discovered via list_compliance_frameworks but does not add details about the format beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., comma-separated example). It does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('Select (activate)') and clearly identifies the resource ('compliance frameworks on a threat model'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the system-level equivalent (select_system_compliance_frameworks) and related discovery tools (list_compliance_frameworks, import_compliance_framework).

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 explicit when-to-use context: requires PRO tier and mutating. It names prerequisite tools for discovering framework IDs (list_compliance_frameworks, import_compliance_framework) and alternatives for viewing results (get_compliance_report) and system-level scope (select_system_compliance_frameworks). This gives clear guidance on workflow and alternatives.

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