favorite_set

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

Annotations indicate the tool is idempotent, not read-only, and not destructive. The description adds value by specifying that starring never bumps an item's updated time and explaining where the flag is stored (frontmatter for memories/notes). This goes beyond what annotations 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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains effects and details. Every part is relevant and there is no waste.

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 has no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the primary effects (sorting, pinning, boost, no time bump) but does not explain the 'project' parameter or return value. For a simple toggle tool this is mostly complete, but minor gaps remain.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The overall description provides context for the action but does not add specific meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema.

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 ('star or unstar') and resource ('item'), and further clarifies the action by listing kinds of items in the schema. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other sibling tool handles favoriting.

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 when to use the tool (to toggle favorite status) but does not provide explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given.

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