set_tpa_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that attenuation is proportional from the breakpoint to full throttle, which is helpful, but it omits important behavioral details such as whether changes are saved persistently, if validation occurs, or what side effects might result from extreme values.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a bracketed note. It is front-loaded with the key operation and value constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, simple mutator, the description adequately covers what the parameter means and its default. However, it fails to place the tool in the broader context of TPA configuration (e.g., how this interacts with tpa_rate, tpa_curve, etc.), which would be valuable given the large number of sibling tools. The description is functional but narrow.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema's 'Value for tpa_breakpoint (UINT16)' by specifying the 1000–2000 range, the role of the breakpoint in TPA, and the default value. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 tool's purpose: setting the TPA breakpoint throttle level on a 1000–2000 scale, with explanation of proportional attenuation. It is specific and distinguishes the tool from generic 'set' operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other TPA-related tools like set_tpa_rate or set_tpa_mode.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other TPA configuration tools or what scenarios call for adjusting the breakpoint. The description lacks any context for selecting this tool among its many siblings.

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