constraint_set_weight

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutating nature. The description adds the conceptual effect of distributing influence but not additional side effects, prerequisites, or failure behavior, providing only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 compact, front-loads the main action and range, and uses a clean bilingual format without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 simple mutating setter, the description plus 100% schema coverage and destructive annotation provides the essential call information. It does not mention return values or error behavior for invalid indices, but that is a minor gap for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description mostly repeats the weight range already present in the schema and adds no significant new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the specific operation (setting a weight) and resource (a target within a constraint), and clarifies the 0-100 scale and influence-distribution behavior. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the constraint context but no sibling tools are explicitly distinguished, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: with multiple targets, the weight distributes influence between them. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as constraint_list for inspection, so exclusions are absent.

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