team_style_set

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral information: human-only authorization, the ≤5-line cap on prose, partial-update semantics ("others keep their value"), and the destructive reset via clear:true. It does not say whether the change is persistent, what the response looks like, or whether it affects other agents, so the burden is only partly met.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the human-only constraint, but the terseness reads as under-specification rather than economy — "dial" is left opaque and the sentence packs three distinct rules awkwardly.

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?

This is a mutating, 6-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description carries the full explanatory load. It does far too little: four enum parameters and the effect of partial updates on non-humans are left unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It covers two (prose length cap and clear:true) and gestures at the rest via the undefined word "dial", but format, length, pushback, and bluntness — four enum parameters — get no explanation of meaning or accepted values.

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 gives a verb ("set") and implies the resource is your style/"prose", and the "Humans only" scope narrows who can call it. But "dial" is undefined jargon and the description never says what a dial is or how this differs from the sibling team_style, leaving the purpose only vaguely inferable.

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?

"Humans only" is a genuine eligibility constraint and "clear:true empties all" implies a reset path, so usage is partially implied. There is no guidance on when to set dials versus prose, when to use this instead of team_style, or what happens if a human omits a field — significant gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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