set_function_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not disclose whether setting a comment overwrites an existing comment, requires special permissions, is reversible, or produces any side effects. It also does not mention authentication or rate limits.

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 at two sentences, quickly stating the purpose and placement. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information: the parameter semantics are missing. Each sentence earns its place, but adding key parameter details would improve structure without increasing length much.

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?

Considering the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter schema coverage, and moderate complexity (3 parameters including a boolean modifier), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and usage guidance, leaving gaps for the AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only explains the comment placement behavior but does not add meaning to the three parameters: 'identifier', 'comment', and 'is_repeatable'. For example, it does not specify how 'identifier' is used (e.g., function name or address) or what 'is_repeatable' means. However, given that the parameter count is low (3) and there is no nested objects, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: setting a function-level comment and specifies that the comment appears either above or below the function header. This is distinct from the sibling tools like 'get_function_comment' and 'set_comment', which operate on comments at different scopes.

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 that this tool is for setting function-level comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_comment' (which might set a comment at a different scope) or 'get_function_comment'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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