change_logger_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation ('change') and that its success depends on policy being enabled. However, it omits details about side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or response format. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 10 words, conveying the core action and a key condition. Every word adds value, and the meaning is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 output schema, low parameter documentation, and many sibling actuator tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return behavior, detailed parameter usage, or how the tool fits into a workflow (e.g., checking policy first). The agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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 only 33% (only 'level' has a description). The description adds no additional parameter information. For example, 'logger' and 'application' lack guidance on expected format or purpose. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 (change), the resource (Actuator logger level), and a condition (when explicitly enabled by policy). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_loggers, which read rather than mutate.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('when explicitly enabled by policy'), which implies usage constraints but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_loggers or when the policy is not enabled. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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