set_mitigation_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is mutating, runs as a polled background job, returns once complete, replaces ALL assignments, and explains AND/OR/defense-in-depth semantics. This is rich, non-obvious context.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then key behavioral notes, then a concise bullet list for group semantics. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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?

For a mutating tool with a background-job execution model and replacement semantics, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, why it's asynchronous, how to prepare, and what the group semantics mean. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how groups work (AND within a group, OR across groups) and clarifying defense-in-depth's role, which directly enriches the `groups` and `defense_in_depth` 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Declaratively set the mitigation-group structure for a control objective.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing it replaces ALL assignments and describes the polled background job behavior.

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 clear context and a direct prerequisite: 'Call get_mitigation_groups first to see the current structure and the unmapped controls available for assignment.' It explains when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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