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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: names are globally unique (case-insensitive), follow username rules, and an empty name clears the existing name. This adds valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured: a short main clause followed by a parenthetical that packs extra constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: setting, clearing, uniqueness, and the switch-to-active-ship requirement. It does not cover error handling or response formats, but these are not critical given the schema and simplicity of the 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 schema already fully describes both parameters with details like '3-32 chars' and 'Send empty string to clear', so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning by noting global case-insensitive uniqueness, which goes beyond the schema's character constraints.

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 opens with 'Set or clear a custom name for your active ship', which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_drone_name by focusing on the active ship and adds contextual details about visibility to other players.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Only your active ship can be named — switch to it first,' guiding when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-ship naming scenarios, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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