Set response style for this chat

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as persistence, reversibility, or effect scope beyond 'for this chat scope'. The agent lacks information about the tool's side effects or scope nuances.

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 that directly states the purpose and parameters. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks clarity on optional chatScope behavior and does not mention return values or side effects. An agent may be uncertain about using the tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the enum values (standard/compact) and mentions 'chat scope', adding some meaning to the mode parameter. However, the chatScope parameter is not explicitly defined, leaving ambiguity about its format or required status.

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 title and description clearly state that the tool sets the response style (standard or compact) for a chat scope. The verb 'set' and resource 'response mode' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'set_draft' or 'set_signer'.

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 implies usage for choosing between standard and compact modes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention defaults or conditions.

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