Explain enforcement mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral context: must_render_verbatim (plain text, no markdown), must_ask_user, and forbidden_next_actions that lock apply tools and log10x_preview_filter until the user picks. This is unusually rich disclosure, though much of it describes return fields that the output schema may already carry.

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 ordering precondition and information-dense throughout. However, the extended enumeration of return fields (must_render_verbatim, must_ask_user, forbidden_next_actions, routes_to.*) partially duplicates what the output schema should convey, adding some bulk.

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 annotations, a full output schema, and 100% param coverage already present, the description supplies exactly the missing orchestration layer: when to call it, what it returns semantically, and where it routes. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100% and the mode enum documents each lever in depth, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the mode list but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource (explain a chosen enforcement mode) and enumerates the exact modes covered. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming log10x_cost_options as its predecessor and log10x_configure_engine / log10x_preview_filter as downstream routes.

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?

Explicit trigger ('CALL THIS AFTER log10x_cost_options when the user picks a mode'), plus routing rules that tell the agent which sibling to invoke next for each mode. The observe_only null-routes case is called out, removing the main ambiguity.

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