set_mitigation_groups

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

The description clearly discloses that the tool replaces all existing assignments, is AI-gated (the platform evaluates satisfaction), and explains group logic. It also notes that defense-in-depth is tracked but not required. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. Missing details include irreversibility and what happens on AI evaluation failure.

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: first sentence states purpose, second paragraph explains replacement and AI-gating, third paragraph details group semantics. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity of mutation with AI evaluation, the description covers replacement behavior, AI-gating, and group logic. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it omits details about the 'server_version' parameter (required but undescribed) and does not mention prerequisites or what triggers evaluation failure.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the group logic (AND/OR), which directly informs the 'groups' parameter. It also clarifies the role of 'defense_in_depth'. The 'justification' parameter gets no extra context beyond the schema's minimum characters. Overall, it adds incremental value for key parameters.

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 action: 'Declaratively set the mitigation group structure for a CO.' It specifies the resource (mitigation group structure for a CO) and verb (set), and distinguishes from siblings like get_mitigation_groups by being a write operation and from set_control_assumption_groups by focusing on mitigation groups specifically.

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 explains when to use the tool: to replace all mitigation group assignments for a CO, with AI evaluation. It provides context on group semantics (AND/OR). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for incremental updates) or list alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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