lira_set_restraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that listed directions become fixed while the others become free and that [] frees the nodes, which is important mutation behavior. It still omits whether existing restraints are overwritten, required model state, permissions, and other side effects.

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 and front-loaded: 'Restrain nodes' establishes the action immediately, followed by the fixed/free semantics and a concise example. There is no repetition or wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition should more fully cover mutation side effects and parameter formats. It partially compensates by explaining direction semantics and the [] clearing behavior, but gaps remain around nodes/model and operational prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies the 'directions' vocabulary (X, Y, Z, UX, UY, UZ) and the special [] value, but it says nothing about the required 'nodes' parameter format (integer node IDs versus a string) or the optional 'model' parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Restrain nodes'. It also explains the effect precisely, including that listed directions become fixed while others become free and that [] frees the nodes. It does not explicitly contrast this operation with sibling tools such as lira_set_loads or lira_add_nodes, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by explaining that listed directions are fixed, other directions are freed, and [] clears restraints. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are required (such as an open model or existing nodes), or any conditions under which it should not be used.

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