gateway_logger_set_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Mutating', which indicates state change, but lacks details on what is mutated (logger level), side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency. The agent cannot assess risks or consequences.

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 only two words, which is overly terse. While conciseness is valued, this lacks essential information needed for tool invocation. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema explained (though context says output schema exists but is not provided), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address what the tool does, how to use parameters, or what the return value is. The complexity is moderate, but the description covers none of it.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters (level, confirm, logger_name). The brief description says nothing about these parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema names, which may be insufficient. For example, the 'level' parameter's format or valid values are not hinted.

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 'Mutating, REST plane.' is extremely vague. It only indicates the tool is a mutating operation via REST but does not specify that it sets the level of a gateway logger. The tool name implies this purpose, but the description fails to confirm it, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'gateway_logs_query' suggest other logger-related operations, but there is no distinction or context for choosing this tool. No prerequisites or scenarios are mentioned.

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