set_function_type

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

The description implies the tool modifies the function's type (a mutation operation), which is consistent with the lack of 'readOnlyHint' annotations. It provides the specific prototype format expected. However, there are no annotations to contradict, and the description does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the change affects global analysis, or any required permissions.

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 a single sentence with a supporting example, all front-loaded and essential. No wasted words; the example provides crucial formatting guidance without extra fluff.

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 is simple (2 required parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. The example clarifies the prototype format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the function must already exist (e.g., from a prior analysis) and that the change is permanent.

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, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'identifier' is a function name or address, and 'prototype' is a C-style prototype string. The description adds semantic meaning (e.g., 'C-style prototype' and the example) that is not present in the schema property titles alone.

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's type/prototype, specifying the identifier (name or address) and the C-style prototype string. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rename_function', 'set_comment', or 'set_operand_type', which handle different aspects of function modification.

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 gives a clear example of the prototype format, which helps the agent understand how to construct the value. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_callee_type' or 'set_type', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., function must exist) or when not to use it.

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