Set the Bridge default model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the selection is persisted, validated by the app-server only when a task starts, reasoning_level attaches to the configured default, and per-task overrides win. It omits any note on permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct information (scope, ID source/validation, reasoning_level and override). No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers persistence, validation timing, and override precedence for a mutation tool lacking annotations. The main remaining gap is the absence of valid reasoning_level values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It points provider_id/model_id at zcode_model_catalog or configured rules and explains that reasoning_level applies to the configured default, but it gives no accepted values or format hints for reasoning_level, leaving a gap for one of three 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Persist a default provider/model selection') and scopes it to 'future tasks that omit zcode_task.model'. It is readily distinguishable from siblings zcode_default_model (read) and zcode_clear_default_model (clear), and it names zcode_model_catalog as the ID source.

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?

Explains when the setting takes effect (tasks that omit zcode_task.model) and that a per-task selection can still override it, which implicitly frames when this tool is and isn't needed. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling read/clear tools, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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