pbs_tfa_webauthn_set

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the burden. It discloses the mutation nature (MEDIUM risk), dry-run behavior, synchronous execution, and the need for specific config. It does not detail error responses or idempotency, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making this fairly transparent.

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: it starts with the core purpose flagged as 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)', then explains the dry-run default, key implications, execution behavior, and config requirement—all in just a few sentences without redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: mutation type, dry-run vs. confirm, and config prerequisites. It lacks error handling and edge cases, but the output schema and schema descriptions fill many gaps, making it sufficiently complete.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing that changes to `rp_id` and `origin` affect existing credentials, which is already in the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a mutation to 'update the server-wide WebAuthn config', with a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `pbs_tfa_webauthn_get` by implying mutation vs. read, it does not explicitly compare, preventing a score of 5.

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?

Guidelines are provided: dry-run by default with a PLAN that highlights destructive implications for `rp_id` and `origin`, confirm=True to execute, and a prerequisite for PROXIMO_PBS_* config. However, no guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative TFA tools, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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