set_agent_role

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only reveals that the tool adjusts weights and budgets but omits key behaviors such as persistence, side effects on other settings, required permissions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence of 23 words, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. Every word adds information 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 complexity (modifying agent configuration), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what salience weights or context budgets are, the meaning of each role, or whether the change is session-only or persistent. The agent lacks sufficient context to use it 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?

The schema fully covers the parameter (enum, 100% coverage). The description adds context by labeling roles as 'built-in' and linking to salience/budget effects. However, it lists 'coordinator' which is not in the enum (actual is 'default'), introducing potential confusion.

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 applies a built-in role profile and specifies the effect (adjust salience weights and context budgets). It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on application rather than listing or querying roles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_role_profiles, update_profile). It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or related tools, leaving the agent without decision context.

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