set_selection_expression_behavior

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: auto-bumping compatibility level (with report back) and that the change is stamped as a model annotation rather than a strongly-typed property. This adds meaningful transparency beyond a plain 'set' operation, though it stops short of covering reversibility or effect on existing data.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose and then add critical technical context. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's modest complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, allowed values, a version prerequisite, and a side effect (auto-bump, annotation stamp). It falls slightly short by not clarifying what 'reported back' means or the role of sessionId, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only 50%: 'behavior' is documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats the allowed values. 'sessionId' is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no new parameter meaning or usage details.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Set' and identifies the exact resource: 'model-wide selection-expression behavior controlling which clients honour calc-group selection expressions.' It also enumerates the value options, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishable from sibling set_calc_group_selection_expressions.

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 a prerequisite (compatibility level 1605+) and notes auto-bump behavior, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The distinction from related sibling tools is implicit rather than stated.

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