set_keep_together

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the best-effort splitting, the removal on keep=False, and refusal for certain types. This is transparent about limitations and side effects.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the primary functionality, supported types, and limitations. It lacks details on parameter formats, but the essential context for using the tool is present.

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. It only explains the 'keep' parameter (boolean effect). 'name' and 'path' parameters are not described, leaving ambiguity about format or valid values.

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 it sets the <KeepTogether> property on specific report items (Tablix, Rectangle, etc.), explains the behavior (best-effort), and distinguishes supported vs. unsupported types (Image, Line, Subreport). This differentiates it from siblings like set_keep_with_group.

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 specifies when to use (for supported item types) and when not to (refuses for unsupported types). It also notes the 'best-effort' nature. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the exclusions provide clear guidance.

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