configure_atlas_council

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it discloses a persistent write to ask_fable's config file, the env vars it overrides, the meanings of synthesizer values ('gpt' = local CLI, 'openai/gpt-5.6-sol' = Atlas-hosted, 'fable'), the built-in ladder on ommission, and the return value (saved config and file path). Minor gaps: it doesn't state whether an existing config is overwiritten or what happens if called with no arguments.

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 purpose, then organized into parameter meaning, usage prerequisite, and return value. It is dense with parentheticals but every clause adds necessary information for a tool without annotations or output schema. Slightly long, yet efficient.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential ground: what is saved, where it's written, what it overrides, how each parameter behaves, the omission fallback, and the return value. Missing edge-case details like overwrite semantics or validation of model ids are minor and don't impair correct invocation.

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 the schema already explains that models becomes ask_atlas_council's default persisted across sessions, that 'atlas:' is optional, and that omitting synthesizer keeps the built-in ladder. The description adds concrete examples and reiterates these semantics, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 is specific: it 'Save[s] the user's chosen Atlas Cloud council (and optionally its adjudicator) so it sticks across sessions', clearly identifying the resource (Atlas council config) and the operation (persist). It is unambiguously distinct from sibling tools like configure_openrouter_council or configure_ollama_council, and from ask_atlas_council which consults rather than configures.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use context: persist across sessions, override ASK_FABLE_ATLAS_COUNCIL / ASK_FABLE_ATLAS_SYNTHESIZER defaults. It also gives a concrete precondition—'Confirm the selection with the user first — call list_atlas_models to ground it in the live catalog.' It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or named alternatives, relying on the tool name for sibling routing.

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