set_constraint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies persistence via "standing rule" but says nothing about precedence, conflict handling, whether existing rules are superseded, or whether confirmation is needed. For a state-mutating tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the trigger condition immediately after. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves the category argument and the mutation's behavioral consequences undocumented.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The required "rule" string is only loosely implied ("the user states one"), and the "category" parameter with its "general" default is never mentioned.

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?

"Add a standing rule" names a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows this creates a persistent constraint. It is not explicit about how it differs from family siblings like retire_constraint and list_constraints, but the create/read/delete split is inferable.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger condition with example phrasings the user might use ("from now on…", "never…"). It stops short of naming alternatives — e.g. that retire_constraint removes a rule — so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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