set_operand_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the change affects display only, implying it's non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or whether changes persist to the database. The description is basic but not misleading.

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 very concise: two sentences that explain the purpose and parameter rules without any filler. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure front-loads the purpose.

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 there are only 3 simple parameters and an output schema exists (which may handle return value documentation), the description covers the core parameter values. However, it omits details about the address parameter's format and does not mention persistence or error conditions. It meets the minimum but leaves gaps.

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. It explains operand_num (0 for first, 1 for second) and display_type (hex, decimal, etc.), adding meaning for two parameters. However, 'address' is left unexplained, and the allowed values for display_type are listed without formal enum definition. This adds value but has gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('how an operand is displayed'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. The sibling tools include rename, set type, and comment operations, but none directly focus on operand display formats, so this description adequately distinguishes the tool.

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 implicitly explains when to use the tool (to change how an operand is displayed) but offers no guidance on when not to use it or explicit alternatives. With siblings like 'set_type' and 'set_function_type', there is potential confusion, but no exclusion is provided.

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