set_constraints

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens to existing constraints, any permissions required, or side effects. Minimal behavioral info is provided.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action. It could benefit from a bit more context, but it is not verbose and every word serves a purpose. Slightly above adequate due to brevity.

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 the simple tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It states the basic function but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. An output schema is absent, but that is not expected. The description meets the minimum but has gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The enum values (MIN, CENTER, etc.) are not explained in the description, but they are defined in the schema. No extra value is contributed.

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 responsive constraints') and the target resource ('a node'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'convert_to_responsive' (which converts to responsive overall) and 'responsive_check' (which checks responsiveness). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where set_constraints is preferred over other constraint-related tools like 'align_nodes' or 'convert_to_responsive'.

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