set_angle_mode

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds that the mode is global and that individual calls can override, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. It doesn't detail side effects on existing results, but the idempotentHint mitigates that need.

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 one sentence with an additional clarifying sentence about overrides. Every word adds value, no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the main 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 simple setter tool with one enum parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description provides enough context: global scope, set action, and override behavior. It could mention return value (likely nothing) but overall is 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the parameter 'mode' is self-explanatory with clear enum values (degrees, radians). The description does not explicitly describe the parameter or its allowed values, relying on the schema. For such a simple parameter, this is adequate, but the description could add value by stating 'mode must be degrees or radians'.

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 sets the global trig angle mode, using the verb 'set' and specific resource 'global trig angle mode'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_angle_mode by indicating it's a setter, and notes that individual calls with unit parameters override this global setting.

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 implies usage context: setting a global default that can be overridden by individual calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., not needed if only one calculation with a specific unit), nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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