fl_set_step_sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. But the description adds the critical 'only if the observed grid digest still matches' - a concurrency guard that is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail what happens on mismatch (does it refuse? partially apply? return error?) or other side effects, so a 3 is appropriate given annotation coverage.

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?

One concise sentence that packs the key operational constraint (digest matching) up front. Every word is meaningful and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose, the concurrency guard, and the context (absolute current-pattern cells) adequately for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with annotations and schema providing additional details.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add detailed semantics beyond what's already in the schema, but it does clarify the relationship between expected_digest and the concurrency guard. That is a slight addition, but not enough to push above 3.

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?

Description states a specific action (set absolute current-pattern cells) and a critical condition (only if observed grid digest matches), clearly distinguishing from siblings like fl_set_step_sequence's read counterpart and other pattern setters. The phrase 'set absolute current-pattern cells' precisely scopes the operation.

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 clearly says when to use it: 'set absolute current-pattern cells' and when not: 'only if observed grid digest still matches'. It also implies the need to first read the digest via fl_get_step_sequence, and warns against use when digest is stale. This provides explicit context and exclusion (stale digest).

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