strategy_set_inputs

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that values get verified and that freshness is out of scope, but says nothing about whether inputs merge or replace existing ones, what happens on partial failure, or what the verification returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the write action first and the scope exclusion second; no filler. The second clause is terse to the point of being cryptic, which costs a point but not much length.

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 four-required-parameter write tool with a nested payload and no output schema, the definition covers the write action and the ID-matching constraint but omits prerequisites (does the strategy need to be on an active chart/pane?), the effect of the layout guard, and how verification results surface. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than fatal.

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?

Only target_id and expected_layout_id carry schema descriptions (50% coverage); entity_id and the nested inputs object — the actual payload of up to 200 free-form entries — are undocumented in both places. "By exact IDs" and "verify values" gesture at entity_id and inputs but give no key format, merge-vs-replace semantics, or type-mapping rules, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Set strategy inputs") with the qualifier "by exact IDs", which separates it from the read-side sibling strategy_get_inputs and from indicator_set_inputs. The trailing clause about report freshness is a scoping hint rather than part of the core purpose, so the statement is clear but slightly muddied.

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?

"By exact IDs" implies the caller must resolve IDs first (the target_id schema points at browser_list_tabs), and "report freshness is a separate step" excludes a use case, but no sibling is named explicitly and no condition for choosing this over strategy_get_inputs or layout_open is given. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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