set_utility_weights

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return surface (configured profile, active weight map, or profile directory), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists, but says nothing about side effects of activate/nudge or auth requirements. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and action list, then the routing rule, then returns — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. The action list is restated from the enum, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 7-parameter multi-action tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, action routing, alternative selection, and the shape of returns. It is close to complete; the only gap is per-action behavioral detail for the mutating actions.

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 100%, so every parameter including the action enum is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, range, or interaction detail (e.g. how delta composes with weights) beyond what the schema states.

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 resource (multi-attribute utility weight profiles) with an explicit verb set and enumerates the five supported actions, so the agent knows exactly what operations this tool performs. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (evaluate_situation) and the distinction between them, which is more than most definitions provide.

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?

Explicitly gives the selection rule: use this instead of evaluate_situation when defining decision preferences rather than evaluating actions. That is a clear when-to-use-vs-alternative statement. It does not, however, give per-action guidance (e.g. when to nudge vs configure), which keeps it short of a full 5.

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