Change pacing settings

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

The description discloses that changes are persisted ('Persisted'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It also warns about risk of account restriction, which is critical behavioral information. The annotation idempotentHint=true is consistent with the description's implication that setting the same values again is safe. No contradiction found.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The risk warning is placed after the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 12 parameters, focusing on the most critical behavioral guidance without unnecessary detail.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description provides essential context about persistence and risk. It explains the two most safety-critical parameters. However, it doesn't cover the meaning of several other parameters (ramp, workDays, warmupProbability), which an agent might need to set correctly. The risk warning is a strong addition that improves completeness.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description explains the meaning of dailyProfileCap and hourlyActionCap with specific thresholds, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like rampStart, rampPerDay, workDays, or warmupProbability, leaving gaps. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 adjusts pacing settings for the worker, with a specific verb ('Adjust') and resource ('pacing settings'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pacing_get by implying this is the setter counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The title 'Change pacing settings' reinforces the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool: when adjusting how fast/when the worker acts. It also gives practical guidance on safe values (e.g., raising caps above certain thresholds increases risk), which helps an agent decide appropriate parameter values. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like pacing_get for reading current settings.

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