change_runtime

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: OAuth setup requiring browser consent on first use. It also states valid values for the accelerator parameter. While it doesn't mention potential side effects like runtime restarts, the disclosed traits are significant for a tool of this scope.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential details (valid values and OAuth requirement). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the parameter's valid values, and the auth prerequisite. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. No major gaps are present.

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?

The schema provides only a string parameter with a default, lacking enum constraints. The description adds crucial semantic value by listing valid values (NONE, T4, L4, A100), directly compensating for the schema's low coverage. This makes the parameter meaning explicit and actionable.

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 tool's function: changing the Colab runtime to a specific GPU accelerator. The verb 'change' and resource 'Colab runtime' are specific, and listing valid values further clarifies the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle cell operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (changing GPU accelerator) and mentions a prerequisite (OAuth setup). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are unrelated to runtime management, making the purpose self-explanatory.

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