set_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that repeatable comments propagate to xrefs, but omits critical details: whether setting a comment overwrites an existing one, if there are permission requirements, any side effects on other data, or what the return value indicates. This lack of transparency is significant for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key usage hint. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the optional parameter's behavior. However, it lacks information about overwriting semantics, the nature of the 'address' and 'comment' fields beyond their schema types, and any error conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain, making it minimally complete.

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 has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'is_repeatable' parameter's effect (propagation to xrefs), which adds value beyond the schema's boolean type. However, 'address' and 'comment' are left entirely to their schema titles, with no additional semantics (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Partial compensation, but not sufficient for all three parameters.

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 'Set a comment at an address,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_function_comment' (which targets functions) and 'get_comment' (which is read-only). The hint about 'is_repeatable' further sharpens purpose by indicating two comment variants.

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 explicitly tells when to set 'is_repeatable=True' for comments that propagate to xrefs. While it does not compare directly with sibling tools (e.g., 'set_function_comment'), the context of setting a comment at an address is clear enough to guide tool selection. No exclusionary guidance is given, but the core usage context is well-articulated.

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