set_threat_model_parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses all key behaviors: can clear parent (with None), rejects cycles and over-deep chains (HTTP 400), bumps model version on success, and returns the updated threat model. This is thorough without contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. It uses clear language and organizes information logically (purpose, usage, constraints, side effects, return). While it is a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value, so it earns a high score.

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 the composition tree, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage, error conditions (cycles, depth), side effects (version bump), and return value. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., parent must exist) or the role of server_version, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 67% (two of three parameters described). The description adds little beyond the schema: it reiterates the clearing behavior for parent_id and mentions model_id selection but does not clarify the purpose or constraints of server_version. For a required parameter, the lack of any guidance in the description is a significant gap.

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 function: 'Set (or clear) a model's parent on the recursive composition tree.' This is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lift_composition_entity or split_composition_entity by focusing solely on parent assignment.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool when wiring a child model under a platform / system / shared-services ancestor, or when re-rooting a model after a re-org.' It also notes when not to use (cycles, over-deep chains) but does not mention alternative tools explicitly. However, the context of sibling tools makes the differentiation clear.

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