cl_lve_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that confirm is required and restricts accepted value forms, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens to unspecified limits, whether existing settings are overwritten, or what permissions are needed, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise constraint sentence and a tight parameter list. Every part earns its place, and the format makes it easy for an agent to scan the action, constraints, and arguments quickly.

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?

All parameters are covered and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The main gaps are lack of guidance about omitting fields, unclear units for 'io', and the ambiguous confirm requirement, which an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly in all cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds essential meaning by naming and explaining all eight parameters with examples. The 'confirm: Required' phrasing is slightly confusing given the schema shows confirm has a default of false, but overall it compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('LVE limits'), and the scope ('for one user'), and lists the affected dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cl_lve_get or cl_lve_users, so it misses the extra point for explicit sibling distinction.

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 implies its usage through the verb 'Set' and the CloudLinux/cgroups context, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus cl_lve_get or cl_lve_users. The value-format constraint ('Only numeric values, percents, or unlimited') gives some usage guidance, but alternatives and when-not conditions are left to inference.

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