ps_confidence_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'hidden knob for operators' which hints at operational control, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a persistent change, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or impacts system performance. The description is minimal and lacks critical details for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence 'This is the hidden knob for operators' adds some context but could be more informative. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but under-specification limits its effectiveness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a mutation tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the threshold affects, the implications of setting it, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely changes system behavior, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'threshold' parameter (which has an enum of values like 'parseConfidence') or the 'value' parameter (a number between 0 and 1). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, but with only 2 parameters, the baseline is adjusted to 3 due to low complexity.

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 states the tool 'Set a confidence threshold' which provides a clear verb ('Set') and resource ('confidence threshold'), but it's vague about what this threshold controls or its domain. The phrase 'hidden knob for operators' adds some context but doesn't specify the system or purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like ps_confidence_get or ps_confidence_bulk_set beyond the basic action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ps_confidence_bulk_set or ps_confidence_get. The description implies it's for operators, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and action, but lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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