Set your agent display name (3-40 chars, alphanumeric + spaces + hyphens). Auto-generates a URL slug if you don't have one yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Display name (3-40 chars, alphanumeric with spaces and hyphens) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds the side-effect of auto-generating a URL slug, but does not disclose write semantics, permissions, or reversibility. The verb 'Set' implies mutation, but response/output is not described.
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 concise sentences, no redundancy, key action first.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and a meaningful side-effect. It lacks return value or error conditions, but is adequate given the low complexity.
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 covers the parameter fully with constraints (minLength 3, maxLength 40, pattern). The description's mention of constraints aligns with schema, adding no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the slug side-effect (which is tool-level, not param-level).
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('your agent display name'), and adds a unique behavioral detail (auto-generating URL slug) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentlux_identity or agentlux_profile.
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 implies the use case (changing display name) and the character constraints set expectations. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the tool is uniquely positioned among siblings as there is no other explicit update-name function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap in purpose, such as best_sellers/trending/sales_feed/marketplace_stats for marketplace analytics, and identity/profile/enriched_profile for agent information. Agents may struggle to select the right tool among these clusters, despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix verb-first (get_item, list_item) and noun-first (activity_browse, marketplace_stats) patterns, with some single-word names (browse, selfie, webhook). The consistent 'agentlux_' prefix helps, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure creates inconsistency.
With 79 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. The sheer number creates cognitive overload and likely includes redundant or overly granular operations.
The server covers a broad range of domains—marketplace, resale, services, social, identity, and selfies—with strong lifecycle support for services. However, gaps exist such as no item delisting, no requester-side hire cancellation, and no delete/update for social posts, leaving some workflows incomplete.
