configure_council

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

It explicitly discloses the persistence side effect: 'written to ask_fable's config file, overriding the matching ASK_FABLE_*_COUNCIL env default.' It also states the return value and file-path behavior. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only signal idempotence and non-read-only.

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 dense but front-loaded: the first clause gives purpose and side effect, and subsequent clauses organize provider-specific semantics. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but each sentence carries useful operational detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the return value, file path, user-confirmation requirement, grounding step, persistence behavior, and provider-specific parameter applicability. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents provider enums, model token forms, synthesizer omission behavior, and `ask_model` usage. The description largely restates this information, adding only marginal context such as 'that `ask_council(provider=…)` should use by default.'

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Save the user's chosen default council for ONE gateway so it sticks across sessions.' It also names related tools like `ask_council` and `list_models`, making it easy to distinguish this persistent-configuration tool from live query tools.

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 gives clear context and a mandatory pre-step: 'Confirm the selection with the user first — ground it with `list_models(provider=…)`.' It also explains when each provider-specific parameter is applicable. It does not explicitly rule out sibling configuration tools like `configure_tracing` or `configure_disabled`, so it stops short of a 5.

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