solver_constraint_satisfaction

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and scoping, which is mildly useful behavioral context, but it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or anything about what the action actually does. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. Routing context is packed into one sentence, and the args section is cleanly structured. No filler, but it could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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 is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool. It does not explain what constraint satisfaction means, when to choose it over other solver tools, or what the outcome of the action looks like. The output schema exists but the description still leaves the core purpose ambiguous.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It does: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is clear and compensates for the schema's empty descriptions, though it lacks examples or detailed format constraints.

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 and resource ('Run the solver domain agent action constraint_satisfaction'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never explains what the constraint_satisfaction action actually does or how it differs from sibling solver tools like solver_solve_optimization or solver_assign_resources. The tool's purpose is only clear if the agent already knows this domain action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The routing and scoping notes ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') describe execution mechanics, not selection criteria. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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