set_log_verbs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the toggle is at runtime and that the response returns the daemon-log path to tail, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation modifies daemon state (beyond 'toggle'), nor any side effects like performance impact or persistence. It is functional but not deeply transparent about behavioral consequences.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose first, then a use case and response hint. Every clause adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema info.

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 tool with one required boolean parameter and optional session/lease, the description explains the purpose, when to use it, and what the response will include (daemon-log path). It does not detail return structure or error cases, but given the output schema is absent and the tool is simple, this is sufficiently complete. A minor gap is not mentioning the effect of the 'lease' parameter, but the schema covers that.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (on, lease, session) with their semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying the 'on' flag controls the toggle. Thus baseline 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 toggles the daemon's per-verb DEBUG audit log at runtime – a specific verb (toggle) on a specific resource (daemon's per-verb DEBUG audit log). It also mentions a use case ('useful for non-trivial runs'), which helps distinguish it from unrelated siblings like humanize_on or click. No sibling covers logging, so it stands apart.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for non-trivial runs where you want a full call trail.' This tells when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the unique purpose among siblings, that is less critical. The guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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