aletheia_set_mandate

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that loosening restrictions requires operatorSecret and that the tool declares scope boundaries. It does not, however, disclose side effects such as overwriting an existing mandate, session persistence, or what happens if an even stricter mandate is already in effect.

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 purposeful sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, the second sentence summarizes the parameter landscape, and the third captures a critical authorization constraint. It is efficient and well-ordered for an agent scanning multiple tool definitions.

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 ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level purpose and the key auth constraint. However, it is silent on what the tool returns (confirmation vs. full mandate object), whether the mandate persists for the whole session, and how conflicts like allowedTools overlapping disallowedTools are resolved. These gaps matter for a tool that fundamentally governs agent behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by grouping parameters into conceptual categories (boundaries, allowed tools, directories, write permissions, risk tolerance) and by linking operatorSecret to the loosening case, but it does not deepen the semantics of any individual parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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-resource pair ('Establish or update the active operational safety mandate') and immediately enumerates what the mandate declares: permissible boundaries, allowed tools, filesystem directories, write permissions, and risk tolerance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aletheia_get_mandate (retrieval) and aletheia_safe_bash/aletheia_safe_sql (execution).

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 conveys that this tool is for establishing or updating the session mandate and notes the operatorSecret requirement for loosening restrictions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to aletheia_get_mandate as the alternative for reading the current mandate, leaving usage routing implicit.

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