Set Control Objective Cal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this exceptionally well by revealing that writes do NOT create a new threat-model version, that the value persists across soft-delete and revival, and that omitting or passing cal=None clears the value. These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before invoking the tool.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only high-value behavioral and clearing details. The use of line breaks and code formatting for cal=None makes the critical instruction easy to parse. No sentence is wasted.

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?

The description covers the most important operational semantics: what CAL is, where it lives, how versioning behaves, and how to clear it. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The main gap is server_version, whose purpose and allowed values are left entirely undefined, and there is no guidance on what happens if an out-of-range CAL is supplied.

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%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for the cal parameter: it defines the 1–4 assurance grading, ties it to per-CO obligations, and clarifies the clearing behavior. co_id also gains an example ('CO3') through the schema. However, server_version remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, preventing a higher score.

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 verb and resource: 'Set the per-CO ISO/SAE 21434 Cybersecurity Assurance Level (CAL).' It clarifies the resource is each individual control objective and adds a distinguishing behavioral fact — writes do not create a new threat-model version and live on the control_objectives identity side-table. This differentiates it from sibling control-update tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies when to use the tool — when you need to set or clear a CAL value on a control objective — and explicitly explains the clearing behavior with cal=None. However, it does not name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing this over related siblings like update_control_status or refine_control. Usage context is present but exclusion/alternative guidance is absent.

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