set_ease_factors

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

The description mentions that the inputs are 'parallel lists', which implies they must be the same length. It also explains the per mille format. However, without annotations, there is no disclosure about error behavior (e.g., what happens if a card ID is invalid or lists have different lengths), authorization needs, or whether this is a destructive mutation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and includes necessary detail about the per mille format. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (presumably describing the return value), the description adequately covers basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks validation rules (e.g., parallel lists length, valid IDs) and error cases, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 description does not explicitly name the parameters but implies through 'parallel lists' that 'card_ids' and 'ease_factors' correspond. It adds value by explaining the per mille format (e.g., 2500 = 250%), which is essential for interpreting ease factor values. However, it does not describe constraints like card IDs must be valid integers or that the lists must be equal length.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('ease factor of each card'). It explains the per mille format with an example, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools include 'get_ease_factors', so the set/get distinction is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_ease_factors' to retrieve current values). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as ensuring card IDs exist or that the lists must be parallel.

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