top_executor

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 states the action but does not explain what setting an executor to 'top priority' entails, whether it is reversible, how it affects other executors, or what the return message contains. Critical side effects and operational context are missing.

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 very short: one sentence plus inline parameter definitions. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, the structure could be improved by separating parameter descriptions or using bullet points, but it is still concise and 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?

Given the large number of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not address return value format, preconditions, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without critical usage context.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'executor_id: Executor number' and 'page: Optional page for page-qualified addressing.' It clarifies the type of executor_id (number) and introduces the concept of page addressing, but it does not explain valid values or how 'page-qualified addressing' works. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more, but it offers some help.

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 action: 'Set an executor to top priority (Top).' It specifies the verb 'set' and the resource 'executor', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling executor tools like 'assign_to_executor' or 'control_executor', missing context on what 'top priority' specifically means.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling list contains many executor-related tools, but the description offers no direction.

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