set_substitution

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

Annotations already indicate this tool is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), potentially destructive (destructiveHint: true), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds that it 'explicitly' enables/disables, but does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. With annotations present, the description provides minimal extra behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of informative annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens if the product is not in the cart or if the substitution state change fails. Minor gap but not critical for basic use.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (product_id and accept) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: explicitly enable or disable substitutions for a cart line. It uses a specific verb (active/désactive) and resource (substitutions for a line in cart). Among sibling tools, none handle substitutions, so it is uniquely identified.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'pour une ligne déjà présente dans le panier' (for a line already in the cart), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is implied but not directive.

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