Set IELTS training selection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, providing a baseline safety profile. The description adds that it 'saves' a 'freely chosen route' and 'practice settings,' implying a persistence/write action. It doesn't disclose side effects like overwriting existing selections or whether the save is required for a valid session, but annotations already cover the mutation/destruction dimensions.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that earns its place by defining scope ('before a Voice session') and content ('freely chosen route' and 'practice settings'). No wasted words. Could slightly enrich by listing the key saved fields, but stays appropriately tight.

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 tool has 8 parameters (3 enums), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists. For a complex setup tool with multiple route enums and conditional parameters (questionId vs questionIds, planItemId, selectedReference), the description provides minimal context: it says it saves route and settings but doesn't explain the selection logic, how the route values map to required parameters, or what the output represents. The output schema exists, which slightly lowers the burden, but for a tool with this param complexity, the 2-3 sentence description is insufficient.

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 for explaining parameters. The description mentions 'route' and 'practice settings' at a high level, partially mapping to 'route' and 'length' parameters, but it does not explain the semantics of required parameter 'part' (Part 1/2/3 vs Full mock) or optional params like questionId vs questionIds, planItemId, or singleGoal, nor when each route value is appropriate. With 8 parameters at 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('Save the learner's freely chosen route and today's practice settings before a Voice session') with a clear resource (training selection). It distinguishes the tool's role as a pre-session setup action versus siblings like 'save_session_review' (post-session). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_training_context' or 'initialize_ielts_workspace' beyond implying setup.

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 signals the timing ('before a Voice session'), giving a clear context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. There is no exclusion guidance, e.g., when to use save_session_review vs this, or get_training_context vs this.

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