set_placement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation persists to config (indicating state change) and details the spec structure. It does not mention permissions, side effects on other placements, or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence. It includes a compact example and additional details in a few sentences without redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the spec format, optional fields, and the persistence behavior. Minor gaps include lack of validation rules or error scenarios, but overall it provides sufficient context for a single-parameter set operation.

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 provides only an object type with no inner structure, resulting in 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying the expected format: a mapping from role to an object containing devices array and optional tensor_split array, with a concrete JSON example. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Set and apply'), the resource ('manual multi-GPU placement spec'), and the key behavioral trait ('persists to config'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings like get_placement, preview_placement, and clear_placement by focusing on setting/applying rather than retrieving or clearing.

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 provides a clear example of the expected format and explains how to specify roles and devices, including the optional tensor_split. It mentions that omitting a role leaves it auto-placed. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be avoided (e.g., use preview_placement for dry-run) or list alternatives.

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