Set Coach Parameters

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it rejects out-of-range values and invalid uncertainThreshold/matchThreshold combinations before any server change, and it returns the resulting overall state. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the added value is real but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose first, required precursor second, validation and return behavior third. Every sentence earns its place and the most important routing guidance is front-loaded.

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 description handles the call sequence, validation behavior, and return value well, but for a seven-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions or output schema it leaves parameter semantics underspecified. The guidance to call get_coach_parameters first mitigates this only partially, since that call supplies ranges and current values, not necessarily parameter meanings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and seven parameters, the description needed to compensate by explaining at least the key parameter meanings. It does not list or define the seven parameters, though it does mention the uncertainThreshold/matchThreshold relationship. The phrase 'training-state tuning parameters' is too generic to guide correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Set one or more of the seven training-state tuning parameters.' This clearly identifies the action and resource, and naturally distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_coach_parameters and get_training_state.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call get_coach_parameters first to learn defaults, ranges, and current values, which is clear usage guidance. It does not spell out when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the prerequisite and intent are unambiguous.

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