Set design score actions

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true), and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: owner/admin authorization with 403 otherwise, the asymmetric API-key rule (can disable autofix but never enable it), the spending consequence of enabling autofix, and that the saved settings are returned. This is well beyond what structured fields disclose.

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 action and the three settings, then progressively adds constraints; nearly every sentence carries information. Slightly dense/crammed and the trailing 'Write.' restates what annotations already imply, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description still states the return ('the saved settings'), the required-input minimum, the default for the optional projectId, and the authorization/cost preconditions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by tying failCi to the concrete CI failure behavior and explaining why autofix cannot be enabled via API key. It adds authorization semantics the schema omits, though it does not add format details for projectId beyond 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 (change/set) plus the exact resource and fields: design deviance score actions for one project — threshold, failCi, autofix. An agent can distinguish it from get_design_settings (the read counterpart) purely from the name and opening clause.

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 real usage constraints: 'Send at least one', 'Project owners and admins only', and the API-key restriction with a 403 outcome. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_design_settings) for reading current values, so it is clear context without a full when/when-not routing.

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