set_constraints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the partial-update behavior ('Seuls les paramètres fournis sont modifiés') and the semantic effects of constraints (sunset, snow, weather, parks/reserves), but says nothing about persistence scope, whether unlisted existing constraints survive, permission requirements, or reversibility for what is a mutation tool.

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 action verb and the sibling relationship are front-loaded, and the parameter enumeration is dense but each element carries information. The single long clause is efficient, though the parenthetical annotations make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers nearly all parameters and their implications, and the existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. Gaps remain around route_id, loop, and the effect on constraints not passed, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it maps target_distance_km/target_d_plus_m (±10%/±15% tolerances), max_duration_h, date/start_time, with_dog, with_children, stroller, max_sac_scale and max_tarmac_pct to their real-world meanings. Only loop and route_id are left unexplained, so it adds substantial value but is not exhaustive.

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 (enregistre/saves) and resource (contraintes de l'utilisateur sur un itinéraire), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_route by noting that validate_route vérifie these constraints. An agent can tell this is the write-side of a set-then-validate pair without opening any schema.

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 clearly frames the workflow by naming validate_route as the tool that checks the saved constraints, implying the set-then-validate sequence. It also states that only supplied parameters are modified, which guides partial updates. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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