Choose how many tools are offered

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses session scope, that it is read-only, that nothing in any environment changes, that no tool is lost (only hidden), and that user confirmation is required first.

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?

Front-loaded with the problem it solves and the action, then the preset vocabulary, then the safety facts. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the token-count rationale is slightly verbose but justifies the tool's existence.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers purpose, all preset options, reversibility, scope, and required confirmation. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without further 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the raw enum by explaining what each preset actually contains (core, authoring, admin, solutions, full) — genuine semantic value for choosing a value. The 'keep' parameter is left to the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: narrow or restore the offered tool list for the session. It also quantifies the problem (146 tools, ~50k tokens of schema) so the agent knows exactly what the tool governs, and no sibling does anything comparable.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ("Answer 'there are too many tools'") and an explicit procedural rule ("Ask the user before calling it"). It does not state when not to use it, but there is no sibling that overlaps, so the gap is minor.

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