set_council_timeouts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description discloses persistence across reloads, overriding env defaults, that no reload is required, that it takes effect on the next ask_council, and that it returns the now-effective values. This fully informs the agent of side effects and state changes.

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 compact yet information-dense, with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers parameter distinctions, usage guidance, and return value without wasting words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return value, effect timing, parameter conditions, and troubleshooting context. Given the moderate complexity (two optional params), this is complete for an agent to select 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by mapping each parameter to its triggering condition (text-only vs full_repo_access) and explaining that omitting a parameter leaves it unchanged, which is valuable beyond the 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 and resource: 'Set the per-completion wall-clock timeouts (ms) for council calls.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like configure_council by explicitly scoping to timeouts and mentioning persistence and env override behavior.

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 directly states when to raise timeouts ('Raise these when a member answer is cut mid-generation') and clarifies when each parameter applies (run_timeout_ms for text-only calls, repo_timeout_ms when full_repo_access is set). It also notes optional omission semantics for leaving values unchanged.

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