oz_set_default_model

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses persistent side effects (edits file on disk), validation against oz model list, and configuration precedence. This is good transparency, though it could mention that the change is immediate and affects all surfaces.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then covers side effects, validation, and requirements. Each sentence adds essential information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, validation, and prerequisites. It is fairly complete, though could mention return value or success indicator. Still strong given the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already describes the parameter well (model id from oz_list_models or 'auto'). The description adds context about validation but not new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool sets the default Oz model by writing to a specific config file, and distinguishes from sibling tools like oz_list_models (listing models) and oz_run tools (running queries). The verb 'set' and resource 'default Oz model' are specific.

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?

The description mentions a requirement (workspace root) and validation behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implicitly suggests use when wanting to set a default model, but lacks direct comparison.

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