configure_council

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: changes persist across restarts/reloads and fields not supplied are left untouched, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a config update tool this is sufficient.

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 long and front-loaded with the core action ('Update the council configuration'). The second sentence efficiently conveys persistence and partial-update semantics. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the essential contextual points: what the tool does, persistence behavior, and partial updates. Given the tool's moderate complexity and thorough schema descriptions, it is complete enough. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and this is a config update where return format is less critical.

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 rich descriptions for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only lists parameter names without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, relying on the schema to carry the detail.

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 purpose: 'Update the council configuration' and enumerates the specific aspects it controls (models, judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on updates and referencing setup_council's persistence behavior, making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage for updating an existing council configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus setup_council or set_council_timeouts. The reference to setup_council's tier choices provides a comparison but no direct 'when to use / when not to use' guidance.

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