submaster_set_level

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

The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not explain what gets destroyed, whether a confirmation is required, or any side effects. The 'confirm' parameter is not mentioned, and the description does not elaborate on the mutation's impact.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no fluff and efficiently communicates the primary purpose, which is appropriate for conciseness.

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 tool with three parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'confirm' parameter, the meaning of 'sub', or any prerequisites or consequences. An agent would lack essential context to call this tool correctly and safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions the 'level' range but does not explain what 'sub' refers to or the purpose of the 'confirm' parameter. An agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of these parameters from the text.

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') and the target resource ('submaster level') with a specific range. It is distinct from sibling tools like channel_set_level or group_set_level because it explicitly targets the submaster, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and other set-level tools. The only hint is the resource name itself, which is implicit at best.

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