configure_openrouter_council

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers: it discloses a durable config-file mutation ('writes a durable default on their behalf', 'survives restarts'). It stops short of mentioning whether existing defaults are overwritten/merged or what the tool returns, so it isn't a 5, but the persistence side effect is clearly communicated.

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 with no filler: the first states purpose and persistence mechanics, the second condenses parameters and the user-choice workflow. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the workflow (list first, let user pick), the parameters, and the side effect. Minor gaps remain — behavior on an empty call and overwrite/merge semantics — but they don't block 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples and prerequisites. The description adds the 'and/or' optionality and calls synthesizer the 'adjudicator', which slightly clarifies relationship but doesn't add material meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Persist') and resource ('default panel for ask_openrouter_council ... to the server's config file') with a stated outcome ('survives restarts'). Distinguishes from configure_ollama_council and configure_atlas_council by explicitly referencing ask_openrouter_council and naming the prerequisite list_openrouter_models.

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?

Provides an explicit pre-step ('Call list_openrouter_models first') and a clear decision rule ('should reflect their choice, not yours'). It also implicitly contrasts with hand-editing an env var. It doesn't explicitly name alternative configure_* tools, but the OpenRouter-specific resource makes the intended target clear.

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