rules_config_set_threshold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It says 'Override' but never states whether the rules file must already exist, whether the change is persisted to disk immediately, whether it is reversible, whether validation (rules_config_validate) is needed, or what permissions are required. The Returns line is redundant with the existing output schema rather than adding behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and cleanly structured with labeled 'When to use', 'Limitations', and 'Returns' sections. The Returns line is wasted text given an output schema already exists, but nothing else is padded.

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?

Purpose, triggering scenario, and a prerequisite are covered, and the return shape needn't be explained since an output schema exists. However, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the absence of any explanation for repository_path and matching_content_path leaves meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at threshold_name (must come from rules_config_list_thresholds) and value (a numeric limit), but repository_path and especially matching_content_path (a glob defaulting to '**/*' that scopes which files the threshold applies to) are never explained, leaving the most ambiguous parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Override a threshold in the repository rules file', which is clearly distinct from the sibling list tool and from rules_config_set_rule. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with rules_config_set_rule, so an agent must infer that boundary from the names alone.

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?

'When to use: when a team agrees on a different limit, e.g. longer functions in tests' gives a concrete triggering scenario, and the limitations line states the prerequisite that names must come from rules_config_list_thresholds, effectively routing the agent to that sibling first. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the required precondition covers the main misuse risk.

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