tracesSetParameters

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the setting applies to future traces, not existing ones. It doesn't disclose side effects like whether this overwrites previous settings or persists across sessions, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the critical temporal constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the effect and the timing. The only gap is the lack of detail on the exact shape of the parameters object, but the schema already provides a basic description, and the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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 100% for the single parameter, but the description only says 'The trace parameters (object, or a JSON string).' The tool description adds context about what those parameters control (statements, database access, aggregation), which helps an agent understand the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact structure or allowed values of the parameters object, so the agent may need to infer from the sibling trace tools or other context.

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: setting what the next trace records (statements, database access, aggregation). It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('what the next trace records'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling trace tools like tracesCreateConfiguration or tracesList, but the focus on 'parameters' for the next trace is distinct enough.

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 clear context: it applies to traces started afterwards, not to one already recorded. This is an important temporal constraint that guides when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list includes related trace tools.

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