Change how much Trood helps in one area

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent write with local scope, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the setting is 'Saved on this computer for this project' — a persistence and scope disclosure an agent would otherwise have to guess. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible or what is returned, but nothing is contradicted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the invocation trigger, and the persistence note follows compactly. The quoted examples are slightly chatty but each one carries a distinct level mapping, so little is wasted.

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?

For a simple two-parameter preference write with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the target granularity (one area), the accepted levels by example, and the persistence scope. Only the post-call behavior (what is returned, how to confirm) is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 100% and both enums are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by giving concrete user-language examples that map onto the level values ('stop explaining deploys' → quiet, 'just give me hints about secrets' → hint), which disambiguates intent-to-enum translation.

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 communicates that this sets a per-area help/verbosity level by mapping three natural-language requests to the quiet/hint/guide enum values. The verb is implied rather than stated ('Use when...'), but the examples with parenthetical level names make the effect of calling it unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling get_trood_levels by being the setter, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Strong trigger guidance: 'Use when the person says something like...' with three concrete phrasings, so an agent knows exactly which user utterances should route here. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point at get_trood_levels as the read counterpart for checking the current setting.

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