set_contribution_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation rules (driver names validated against model factors, each driver in at most one group, baseAdjustments must reference own drivers), error behavior (400 with did-you-mean hint on typos), and the special pseudo-group. It does not mention side effects (overwrite vs append) or authentication, but the given details are substantial and specific.

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 longer than typical but every sentence delivers value: purpose, per-group schema, validation rules, pseudo-group, and an explicit disambiguation. The structure with bullets and a NOTE improves scanability. It is not overly verbose given the complexity.

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 covers the essential input structure, validation rules, and the critical distinction from a sibling tool. It does not describe the return value (no output schema) or idempotency, but given the tool's complexity, the provided context is nearly comprehensive 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the structure of contribution_groups (name, drivers, optional color, optional baseAdjustments, and the special pseudo-group) and gives validation constraints. It does not explicitly describe model_hash, but the name is self-explanatory and likely clear enough. Overall it adds strong semantic value beyond the loose 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 states a specific action (persist) on a specific resource (driver groupings for the dashboard contributions view) and clarifies its scope with context ('configure grouping once and every viewer sees it'). It also distinguishes this from the unrelated create_model channel_groups feature, so an agent can differentiate it from the sibling tools.

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 routes the agent away from create_model's channel_groups and clarifies this is the contributions-view grouping. It implies when to use (to set persistent dashboard groupings) but does not mention the read sibling get_contribution_groups or provide explicit 'use this when' conditions. The note about confusion adds clarity, so it's nearly a 5.

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