Set ZFS Pool Property

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only but idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by flagging the '(sudo)' privilege requirement, but does not describe what the property change affects or error behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the action, scope, privilege note, and example front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and it reads in one pass.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present (action, scope, sudo, example). It is adequate but leaves usage routing and any consequences of the change unstated.

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 all three parameters (pool, property, value) are documented in the schema. The description adds only an example pairing (autotrim=on), which is marginal value over the schema's own property examples.

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+resource ('Set a property on a ZFS pool') and scopes it to pools, which implicitly separates it from the dataset-oriented zfs_set_property sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast against that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives an example ('e.g. autotrim=on') but no when-to-use, when-not, or routing guidance relative to the numerous zfs_* siblings. The example clarifies value syntax, not invocation context.

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