set_run_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral trait beyond the schema — that an unknown strategy name produces a Vivado error enumerating valid strategies — but says nothing about whether the run must be idle, whether the setting persists across later runs, or whether it overwrites an existing strategy.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose and concrete examples come first, and the error-behavior hint follows. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and how to recover from a bad name, but omits the prerequisites and side effects an agent needs before invoking it (run state, persistence, effect on subsequent builds).

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by supplying real strategy names ('Flow_PerfOptimized_high', 'Performance_NetDelay_high') that the schema does not contain, but it gives no naming conventions or constraints on the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the strategy of a synthesis or implementation run') and backs it with two concrete examples pairing a run name to a strategy name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_synthesis or run_implementation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this must be called on an existing run, presumably before running synthesis/implementation, but no preconditions (project open, run exists, run not currently executing) or when-not conditions are stated. The note about the error listing valid strategies gives a recovery path but not selection guidance.

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