set_control_objective_cal

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that writes do not create a new threat-model version and that the value survives soft-delete + revival of the CO. It also explains how to clear the value. These are non-obvious side effects that are crucial for an agent to understand before invoking the tool. No contradictions exist.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the primary action, then provides the context of what CAL is, followed by the critical behavioral note about versioning and persistence, and ends with clearing instructions. Each sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and 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 tool's simplicity (a setter with 4 parameters and an output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: the semantics of CAL, side effects (version independence, soft-delete survival), and clearing. The output schema already handles return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters (cal, co_id, model_id have descriptions; server_version lacks one). The description adds some semantic depth for cal (explaining the meaning and clearing behavior), but this largely replicates the schema's own description. It provides no additional detail for co_id, model_id, or server_version. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value beyond that.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the per-CO ISO/SAE 21434 Cybersecurity Assurance Level (CAL).' It specifies the verb (Set), the resource (control objective), and the attribute (CAL), and it explains what CAL is, distinguishing it from other control-objective operations. This is a specific, unique action compared to sibling tools like update_control_status or refine_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?

The description provides usage context: it explains that CAL is per-CO, lives on the control_objectives side-table, and how to clear it via cal=None. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use this tool. The guidance on clearing is practical and appears sufficient for most use cases, though it lacks explicit comparisons with other tools.

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