set_functional_satisfaction_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It declares the operation as 'Mutating' and states that it 'Replaces the objective's group structure wholesale,' clearly indicating destructive overwrite. It also explains the AND/OR group semantics and that the structure is applied as-is, providing thorough transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and mutation warning. Every sentence provides useful information: the replace behavior, group semantics, ungrouped handling, contrast with sibling tool, and prerequisite read. There is 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?

Given the complexity of the operation (wholesale replacement with logical group semantics), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral implications, and provides an explicit alternative and prerequisite. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so no essential context is missing.

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?

Although schema description coverage is high (80%), the description adds significant meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It explains the conceptual semantics of groups_json (AND within groups, OR across groups) and clarifies the purpose of the 'ungrouped' parameter. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Declaratively set (replace) a functional objective's satisfaction groups.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_control_assumption_groups by explicitly noting the absence of an AI relevance gate.

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 explicit usage context: it explains when to use this tool versus set_control_assumption_groups, and instructs the user to 'Read the current state first with get_functional_satisfaction_groups' as a prerequisite. This gives clear guidance on when and how to invoke it.

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