set-account-department-filter

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 lacks details on side effects (e.g., overriding existing filters), required permissions, or whether the change is immediate or reversible. The null behavior is only implied by the schema, not the description.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation nature (setting a filter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the effect of setting or removing filters, what happens to existing access, or how to revert. The schema provides some detail, but the description should contextualize it.

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 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Set department filter') and its purpose ('to restrict account access to specific departments'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like update-account or manage-account-permissions by focusing solely on department filtering.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other account management tools. It does not mention contextual prerequisites or that setting department_filter_id to null removes the filter, which is critical usage information.

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