set_co_cal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that writes do not create a new threat-model version, the value survives soft-delete and revival, and how to clear the value. These details significantly inform the agent about side effects and persistence.

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 five sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with purpose, then provides essential context and behavior, and ends with usage detail. Every sentence contributes unique value, making it concise and structured.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained) and the tool has four parameters, the description covers purpose, main parameter behavior, side effects, and persistence. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention that setting a value outside 1-4 might fail.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description explains the cal parameter (1-4 grade, clearing with None) and implies co_id's role, but does not add meaning for model_id or server_version beyond schema. It adds marginal value over the schema.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'per-CO ISO/SAE 21434 Cybersecurity Assurance Level (CAL)'. It uniquely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings, as no other sibling tool sets a CAL on a control objective.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify conditions for use, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The behavioral notes about versioning and persistence are about effects, not usage context.

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