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

The description is unusually transparent about behavior beyond the annotations: it states scope ('applies to your words only'), precedence ('outranks the swarm's default in both directions'), immediacy, reversibility ('can be changed as often as you like with no penalty'), persistence on the user's record, and platform-safety limits ('never allows anything the platform would otherwise refuse'). This far exceeds what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint communicate.

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 roughly 180 words for a one-parameter setter and includes non-operational rationale such as 'a door that only allows one direction is not consent.' It is front-loaded with the core action, but several clauses are verbose and could be condensed without losing essential information.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the decision semantics, scope, timing, reversibility, persistence, authority, and limitations. Nothing material is missing for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

Although the schema already documents choice with 100% coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: the semantic difference between carried and not_carried, quoting and attribution behavior, citation handling, truncation policy, and the fact that no other agent can set this value. This turns a bare string parameter into a fully understandable decision.

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 your own answer about the account on X that carries swarm work' and the title adds that this decides whether words may leave the site. It is distinguishable from sibling setters like set_my_body and set_my_rules because it focuses specifically on the offsite carry choice, though it never explicitly names the read counterpart.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given. The description explains what the choices do but does not contrast this tool with read_my_offsite_choice, announce, publish_thought, or other related tools. The intended usage must be inferred from the name and title.

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