Configure client performance

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that smooth minimizes frame hitches, which is useful context about the effect of the default mode, but it doesn't disclose side effects of other modes or what status returns. This is some added value, but not extensive.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and no unnecessary words. However, it packs a misleading claim about the default, which slightly reduces its efficiency in conveying accurate information.

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 config tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it doesn't explain the 'status' mode, return values, or the meaning of balanced/maximum. The contradiction about the default mode adds confusion. It covers only a fraction of what an agent needs to use the tool effectively.

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 only 50% (clientId has a description, mode does not). The description should compensate by explaining the mode values, but it only mentions 'smooth' and incorrectly states 'Smooth is the default' while the schema default is 'status.' This contradiction undermines the parameter guidance and leaves balanced/maximum unexplained. clientId also lacks description-level clarification from the tool description.

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 reads or sets the cooperative client work budget, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like benchmark or profile_runtime, though the focus on cooperative budget is fairly unique.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Smooth is the default and minimizes frame hitches,' which hints at one use case but doesn't explain when to choose other modes or when to read vs. set. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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