openmausbot_set_bot_model

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds little behavioral context. It does not explain the dry_run flow, whether 'plan' performs a side-effect-free check, or what 'apply' changes beyond the implied model assignment. No contradiction with annotations, but also no meaningful disclosure beyond them.

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 text is short and easy to parse, but brevity comes at the expense of substance. For a tool with five parameters and a plan/apply mode split, one vague sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—two modes, a dry_run parameter, required instance and model identifiers—the description is far too minimal to let an agent call it correctly. It does not explain the plan/apply distinction, validation steps, or dry_run semantics, even though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 80%, so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific information, and notably does not explain the undocumented dry_run parameter, which appears important given the 'plan or apply' distinction. This is a baseline score, not a strength.

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 says 'Plan or apply a validated model selection,' which names an action and a resource but is vague about what actually happens: does it change the bot's assigned model, or only decide on one? It is not a tautology and it loosely distinguishes from list_models/plan siblings, but the dual 'plan or apply' phrasing leaves the core purpose unclear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openmausbot_plan, openmausbot_list_models, or openmausbot_update_bot. There is no mention of prerequisites, the difference between planning and applying, or when a caller should choose this over a sibling.

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