set_co_cal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: writes to side-table, does NOT create a new threat-model version, value survives soft-delete+revival. Adds clarity on mutation 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, then explanation, then usage. Four sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool complexity (setting CAL with side-effects), description covers behavioral aspects well. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Description is complete for an experienced user.

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 75% (high), baseline 3. Description adds meaning for 'cal' parameter (1-4 grade, clear by None) and context of what CAL is. Other parameters (model_id, co_id) are sufficiently described in schema. Server_version lacks description but is common.

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 clearly states the tool sets the per-CO ISO/SAE 21434 CAL, defines CAL as a 1-4 grade, and explains where it lives. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on CAL on control objectives, a unique action among many set_/update_ tools.

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?

Description provides context on when to use (setting CAL) and how to clear (pass None), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It gives clear behavioral context like no new version creation and value persistence.

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