setChildConcurrency

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the pool mechanics. It discloses that increasing the limit may fail if insufficient slots exist, and decreasing returns slots immediately. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, with no 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 four concise sentences, each carrying useful information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the slot source, and the third and fourth describe increase/decrease effects. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description adequately explains the operation's behavior, effects, failure condition, and reseller context. It does not describe the return value, but for a mutating setter this is a minor gap. The schema covers parameters fully, so overall completeness is strong.

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 input schema already covers both parameters, each with clear descriptions (child_organization_id and new_limit with type and constraints). The description adds the concept of 'delta' and slot deduction/return, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Set the maximum number of simultaneous calls a child organization can run.' It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings, especially with the reseller context and detailed behavioral explanation.

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: slots come from the reseller's shared pool, increasing deducts from the pool, decreasing returns. This implies when to use (anytime a reseller needs to adjust child concurrency) and why, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. No other sibling tool does this, so exclusion is not necessary.

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