advisor_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the three supported actions, the exact model format with examples, and the notable fact that any model is accepted with no allowlist. It does not detail persistence or side effects of 'set'/'off', but the core behavior is transparent and useful.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but the sentence 'Use when the user asks' is vague filler that doesn't earn its place. The inline examples, while long, are valuable for establishing the model format. Overall it remains 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 (multiple actions, a model parameter with format requirements) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage points well. It could be more complete by explicitly referencing the sibling tool's role, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates. It explains the valid values for 'action', the required model format for 'set', and that the model parameter is needed only in that case, plus examples of acceptable formats. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get or change advisor settings,' which clearly identifies the tool's domain. It further details distinct actions ('get', 'set', 'off') and confirms this is about configuration, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'consult_advisor' without being explicit.

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 phrase 'Use when the user asks' is generic and provides no concrete decision guidance. The action descriptions imply usage (get vs. set vs. off), but the tool never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'consult_advisor' or states when not to use it, leaving the comparison to inference.

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