set_questionnaire_criticality_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: it requires admin_write permission and requires exact questionnaire identity confirmation, which conveys a safety check. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission and confirmation requirements are stated succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 permission-sensitive write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what criticality_level values are valid, what happens on identity mismatch, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. An agent could pass an invalid value or misunderstand the outcome.

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 50%, covering questionnaire_identity and confirm_questionnaire_identity, but criticality_level and profile lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, such as acceptable criticality values or what profile does, so the agent is left to infer those semantics from the parameter names alone.

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 states the action ('Set') and the resource ('questionnaire criticality settings') with enough specificity to distinguish it from the sibling get_questionnaire_criticality_level. It is not as precise as it could be about what 'criticality settings' includes, but the core purpose is clear.

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 conditions for using the tool ('Requires admin_write permission') but gives no guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives such as get_questionnaire_criticality_level, or when it should not be used. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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