set_council_timeouts

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses persistence across reloads, effect timing ('takes effect on the next ask_council'), the fact that a reload is NOT required, and the return value ('Returns the now-effective values'). It also explains the timeoutNotice signal, providing rich behavioral context.

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?

Five sentences, each informative and non-redundant. The main action and key scope are front-loaded ('Set the per-completion wall-clock timeouts'), and every sentence adds value without 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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers persistence, effect timing, when to raise timeouts, and the return behavior. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return value description.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive defaults and ranges, but the description adds meaning by linking each parameter to its use case (run_timeout_ms for text-only, repo_timeout_ms for full_repo_access) and clarifying omission semantics. This goes beyond the schema's baseline, though the schema already does heavy lifting.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('per-completion wall-clock timeouts for council calls'), specifies units, and distinguishes between two timeout types (text-only vs repo-access). It also notes persistence and override of env defaults, differentiating it from sibling config 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?

It explicitly gives a concrete trigger: 'Raise these when a member answer is cut mid-generation', and explains the partial-update behavior ('Omit either to leave it unchanged'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context strongly implies its niche.

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