set_calc_group_precedence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly explains the effect on evaluation order and states a prerequisite, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose potential validation errors, whether the operation is destructive, or what the return value is—gaps typical for a mutation tool without 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 two compact sentences. The first explains the action and semantics, the second provides the prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition, and it 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?

For a simple setter tool with no output schema, this description covers the core meaning, the prerequisite, and the evaluation-order context. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but given the moderate complexity, the description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 67%, with sessionId lacking a description. The description reinforces the meaning of 'precedence' by restating 'higher applies last', which matches the schema, but it adds no new parameter-level detail. The prerequisite about the table being a calculation group aligns with the table parameter description, providing some extra context, but sessionId remains unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'calculation group's Precedence', and clarifies the key semantics: 'HIGHER precedence is evaluated last (outermost)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_calc_item_ordinal or add_calculation_group.

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 usage context: 'when multiple calculation groups apply' and a clear prerequisite: 'Run on a table that is already a calculation group'. It gives clear conditions but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, 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.