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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds transparency by specifying that only bounded metadata and an attested outcome are stored, which is a key behavioral insight. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the limited effect.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and then adds the crucial metadata caveat. No filler words; every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema, many siblings), the description is quite minimal. It does not explain the meaning of parameters like details, status, summary, referenceIds, or expectedVersion, nor the effect on the editor or how the outcome is used. It relies on the agent's understanding of the domain. Adequate but with gaps.

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, but it provides no parameter-specific guidance. The schema itself has many fields with patterns and max lengths, but their meaning is left to inference. The description gives no hints about what 'details' or 'expectedVersion' mean. However, the idempotencyKey is somewhat self-explanatory. Baseline 3 due to zero coverage but description adds no direct param value.

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 action ('set editor preference'), the target ('connected local agent'), and the quirky nuance that 'the server stores only bounded metadata and an attested outcome.' This distinguishes it from other 'set' tools like set_context_layout and clarifies its scope.

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 implies this is a command to a local agent, distinct from perhaps other preference-setting tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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