set_tier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting that the action is 'Recorded as a human decision in the audit trail,' which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as whether the override is reversible, what permissions are needed, or immediate side effects beyond the audit trail.

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 composed of two concise sentences that directly convey the core purpose and a key behavioral consequence. There is no redundant information, and it is well front-loaded with the primary 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 required parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks details about parameter mapping, the allowed tier values, and the operational impact of the override. An agent would need additional information to confidently invoke the tool, making the description incomplete for its 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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'reason' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the purpose of serverId, toolName, tier, or reason. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, leaving agents to infer that serverId and toolName identify the tool and tier is the new value. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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: manually overriding a tool's risk tier when automatic classification is incorrect. The verb 'override' and the specific resource 'tool's risk tier' make the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like classify_tools (which performs automatic classification) and promote_tool/revoke_tool (which handle different lifecycle actions).

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 specifies the exact condition for use: 'when the classifier gets it wrong.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios where other tools (e.g., promote_tool or revoke_tool) might be appropriate, so it lacks a fully explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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