set_components_suppression

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

Discloses key behaviors: validation up-front (raises if any missing), config switching optimization per scope, and return dict structure. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; covers mutation but could mention reversibility or permissions.

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?

Well-structured with purpose, usage, params, returns. Bilingual (Spanish/English) adds redundancy; could be more concise by using one language. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, typical use, efficiency, parameter details, return value. Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, but description fully explains each parameter: component_names (source, validation), state (enum values with default), config_scope (enum values), config_names (conditional requirement). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 changes suppression state of multiple components in one call, with a typical use case (trim-variant BOM prep). It distinguishes from sibling set_component_suppression by noting efficiency (switches config once per config_scope target instead of per pair).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (suppress multiple components, more efficient than looping set_component_suppression), prerequisites (component_names from get_active_assembly_info, not empty), and conditional requirements (config_names needed with config_scope='specific').

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