Set the server log level

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the live no-restart effect, the admin authorization requirement, that debug/trace are noisy and should be reverted, and that trace logs request bodies (a real privacy consideration). The idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations are consistent with the described behavior, and the description materially enriches what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Three short sentences earn their place: the core action, the access precondition, and the operational warning. The most decision-relevant information (what it changes, that no restart is needed) is front-loaded, with zero filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, nothing essential is missing. The description covers access control, live behavior, and operational risks; return-value details are covered by the output schema, and the confirm_token mechanism is documented in the schema.

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 100% and both parameters already have rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by characterizing specific enum values ('debug' and 'trace' are loud; trace logs request bodies), which reinforces the playbook for the level parameter without duplicating the schema's content.

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 ('Changes the log level of the running Woodpecker server') and adds a scope-defining detail ('without a restart') that separates it from config-file-based alternatives. It reads clearly as the mutating counterpart to the sibling get_log_level, so an agent can distinguish it from the 60+ siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use this for live changes that take effect without a restart, and it flags the admin-only precondition. It also cautions to revert debug/trace after use, which is actionable guidance. However, it does not name an explicit alternative or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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