set_subject_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: a permission requirement and the side effect that AUTO affects future lecture opening. It omits what ASK/IGNORE do at runtime, whether the change is reversible, and how failures surface.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and value domain before the permission constraint and the warning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permission, side effects, and a safety warning, which is more than most. It still leaves the meaning of two of the three modes and post-invocation behavior undefined.

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 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description partially compensates by enumerating the mode values and noting the subject must already exist, but it never defines what ASK or IGNORE actually mean, leaving the semantics half-covered.

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 ('Set') and resource (subject rule) and enumerates the exact value domain (AUTO/ASK/IGNORE) for an existing subject. It clearly differs from the read-only sibling get_subject_rules, though it never names siblings or the broader update_settings tool explicitly.

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 an explicit precondition ('only at user's request and with app-side permission') and a caution against silent changes, which is genuine when-to-use and when-not guidance. It stops short of pointing to the read sibling get_subject_rules to inspect current rules first.

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