set_rating

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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true. Description adds the clearing semantic (rating 0 clears) and the range constraint (1-10), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However it doesn't explain what happens to prior ratings or return behavior, though output schema covers returns.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter bullets. The 'See create_film for the scale' is a useful routing hint. Args-style formatting is acceptable but slightly verbose for two params.

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 an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. Both params are described, clearing behavior noted, idempotency in annotations. Missing only explicit sibling routing and scale direction.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents both params: id as Film id, rating as a 1-10 whole number with 0 semantics. It even cross-references create_film for scale details. Slight gap: doesn't explain whether 1 or 10 is highest.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: setting a rating for a film. The domain term 'Rolle's own rating' signals user-level rating semantics. Sibling differentiation is weak — it doesn't distinguish from write_review or update_film explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like update_film or write_review. The reference to create_film for scale is a helpful cross-link but doesn't explain when to choose this tool.

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