setup_council

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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: persistence of choices across reloads, reload requirement for new providers/concurrency changes, and the action of re-detecting/auto-populating. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not detail side effects like overwriting existing council contents.

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 three sentences: the first states the core action, the second enumerates tier options per provider (which is helpful), and the third gives a critical reload caveat. No filler, well structured, and front-loaded.

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 it's a setup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, persistence effect, and reload requirement. It could mention what happens to existing council entries, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already describes each parameter at 100% coverage with enums. The description adds meaning by stating that 'Tiers gate cloud availability and per-provider concurrency,' which explains the purpose of the tier values beyond simply listing them. It also indicates persistence, enriching the semantics.

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's function: 'Set subscription tiers, then re-detect and auto-populate the council with everything usable.' It names the resource (council) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'configure_council' by emphasizing re-detection and auto-population, with concrete provider/tier lists.

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 clear usage context, noting that choices persist across reloads and that registering a new provider or changing concurrency requires a reload. It implies this is the setup tool for tiers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over 'configure_council' or any exclusions, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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