set_drm_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set DRM authority level' and does not explain side effects, valid level ranges, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on the document.

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 text is minimal and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so sparse that it reads more like under-specification than effective conciseness, especially for a tool whose key parameter semantics are undocumented.

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?

Although this is a low-complexity one-parameter tool and an output schema exists, the description still omits essential context: what DRM authority levels are, what values are accepted, and what setting them does. This is inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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?

The schema provides only an integer named 'level' with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'DRM authority level value,' which mostly restates the parameter name and does not clarify what integer values mean or what levels are valid.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Set DRM authority level.' It conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity, but it does not distinguish this tool from security-related siblings like set_file_security or set_compatible_document.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when setting DRM authority is appropriate.

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