bar_set_band_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value by explaining the constraint's downstream semantics (zero penalty inside, graded penalty outside). However, it never discloses mutation behavior such as whether setting a Band overwrites an existing constraint on that axis, or any prerequisites on the slot/cocktail. Output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by a definition, usage rule, a concrete Negroni example, and a bounds note. It is dense but each element earns its place; the quoted definition and example add real comprehension value without much waste.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description explains the domain concept well but omits mechanical details for several parameters (cocktail_id, sort, out_weight) and any overwrite/idempotency behavior. Output schema exists so return-value explanation is not needed, keeping this at an adequate-but-gapped 3.

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 compensate, and it meaningfully explains axis (0–3 for gin), lo/hi (inclusive integer bounds), and hard (disqualifying flag). But three of seven parameters — cocktail_id, sort, and especially out_weight — are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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 a Band constraint on one axis of a recipe slot') and defines what a Band is, so an agent knows the operation precisely. It differentiates conceptually from the sibling bar_set_point_constraint via the hard/graded distinction, but never names that alternative, leaving some sibling routing to inference.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use Band for the forgiving axes of a slot — most slots are wide on most axes,' plus the condition for hard=True (axes that truly disqualify). The complementary 'when-not' (use a point constraint instead) is only implied, not stated with the alternative tool named.

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