tune_weights

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint false annotation: invalid or non-numeric weight names are rejected, values are clamped, scope precedence is defined, and effects apply at query time. It also clarifies reset semantics and that no other tool consumes these weights, making side effects understandable.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: usage modes, precedence, validation behavior, tunable names, and effect scope are all covered without redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly moves into actionable details.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to expect on inspection (effective weights and their source) and fully explains all invocation paths and scoping rules. Nothing central to choosing or calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantic value by enumerating the ten tunable weight names, the set_weights shape, and the precedence of dataset scoping. It clarifies that set_weights is an object of number values and that unknown names are rejected, which goes beyond the bare 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 names the tool as inspecting, setting, or resetting search_data's column-ranking weight vector. It specifies the exact resource and actions, and differentiates itself from jcodemunch/jdocmunch by noting weights are tuned explicitly here.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance: omit args to inspect, pass set_weights to override, use reset=true to clear, and scope with dataset. It also clarifies precedence (per-dataset wins over global, global wins over built-ins) and that only search_data reads these weights, which helps route the agent away from inappropriate uses.

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