select_compliance_frameworks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is mutating, requires PRO tier, replaces the existing framework selection, may trigger background auto-remediation, and propagates tag selections to member models. It also notes that auto-remediate jobs run autonomously and can be re-triggered later.

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 appropriately structured: a clear one-sentence summary, immediate prerequisite and replacement semantics, then a scoped bullet list. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the format makes the three scope-specific paths easy to parse.

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 high complexity of the tool and the absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, side effects, scope semantics, replacement behavior, background job execution, and downstream reporting tools. The output schema can handle return-value details, so the description's focus on behavior and context is appropriate.

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?

The description substantially enriches the schema by explaining how scope controls the interpretation of scope_id and detailing the distinct behavior for each enum value. It also adds practical context for framework_ids by directing users to list_compliance_frameworks and import_compliance_framework, going beyond the schema's comma-separated example.

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 opens with a specific action — "Select (activate) compliance frameworks at a chosen scope" — and distinguishes itself from related tools like list_compliance_frameworks, import_compliance_framework, and get_compliance_report. It further clarifies that re-calling replaces the existing selection, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: discover valid ids via list_compliance_frameworks, import custom ones via import_compliance_framework, and view results via get_compliance_report at the same scope. It also explains when to use auto_remediate_compliance later, and describes the different behaviors and side effects for model, system, and tag scopes.

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