classify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the effect on MCP access but does not address whether classification overwrites existing settings, if changes are reversible, or if there are authorization requirements.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by a usage example and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and usage context adequately. It does not explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so the agent can infer that. Minor missing detail: what happens if both allowed and denied lists are provided.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by enumerating the classification levels (public, internal, confidential, restricted) and explaining that allowed_mcps and denied_mcps are JSON arrays of MCP names. The schema only shows types with no enums or descriptions, so the description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'classification level on a ref', specifying that it controls MCP access. It distinguishes from siblings like 'encrypt' or 'wrap' by focusing on data sensitivity enforcement, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides concrete examples of when to use the tool, such as marking legal documents as confidential and synthetic outputs as public. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the sibling tools are not in the same domain.

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