set_chaos_config

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It explains that 'enabled=false' disables all chaos, describes the distinction between simple and advanced fault types, and mentions pre-built profile options. While it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, it provides meaningful operational guidance that the annotation alone doesn't convey.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each earn their place: first establishes the core purpose, second distinguishes simple vs. advanced usage, third covers disabling and pre-built alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main function, and appropriately sized for a complex configuration tool.

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 (9 parameters, advanced fault types) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the tool's scope, different usage modes, and key behavioral aspects. However, it doesn't describe what happens after configuration (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately, what the response looks like, or error conditions), which would be helpful for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by grouping parameters into 'simple chaos' (latency ranges, error rates, bandwidth) and 'advanced stateful faults' (raw rules with specific fault types), and mentions the profile parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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's purpose: 'Configure chaos fault injection rules.' It specifies both simple chaos (latency, error rates, bandwidth throttling) and advanced stateful faults (circuit_breaker, retry_after, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_chaos_config' (which reads config) and 'reset_chaos_stats' (which resets statistics).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for configuring chaos injection, with guidance on simple vs. advanced usage and disabling chaos. It explicitly mentions an alternative: 'For pre-built configurations, use named profiles...' However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus other sibling tools like 'manage_circuit_breaker' or 'manage_stateful_faults' that might overlap in functionality.

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