set_mention_policy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it performs excellently. It discloses that the flag is memory-only, resets on server start, joining a room, or restart, and that nothing is written to disk. It also surfaces important privacy constraints about the board visibility and the answer source, all of which are beyond the structured schema.

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 and then layers behavioral constraints, lifecycle, and reporting. It is long, and there is slight redundancy between 'held in memory only' and 'nothing is written to disk,' but every section contributes necessary operational or safety context for such a policy-changing tool.

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 single-parameter setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers activation, deactivation, scope limits, persistence semantics, privacy warnings, and where the current value can be observed. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and understand its consequences.

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?

The schema already documents the single boolean parameter with true/false descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: true enables on-canvas knowledge answers built only from the mention's own words and public knowledge, while false returns to drawing requests only. This goes beyond a restatement of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn knowledge answers on or off for this session.' It also differentiates the tool from siblings by naming acknowledge_mention as the execution path and room_status/poll_room as the reporting tools, so an agent can clearly see what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 gives clear activation context: with answerQuestions true, qualifying mentions may be answered on the canvas instead of being acknowledged out of scope. It also spells out exclusions such as account access, posting, and out-of-room actions. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X,' but the behavioral context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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