set_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits directly. It states that setting a type is a mutation but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., type libraries), error conditions (e.g., invalid address), whether changes persist, or what the output looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to safely or correctly invoke the 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the required input format. 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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, especially since an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must the type be pre-defined?) and does not explain what 'set the type' means in terms of reverse engineering workflow (e.g., assigning a type to a data item vs. a function). This leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with IDA Pro.

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 schema provides parameter names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: 'hex address' clarifies that the address should be in hexadecimal string format, and 'C-style type declaration' explains what type_str should contain. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'type at an address', specifying both the action and the target. It adds details about the required inputs ('hex address' and 'C-style type declaration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_function_type or set_operand_type that operate on 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_function_type, set_operand_type, or set_local_variable_type. The description provides instructions on how to call it but does not clarify the context or exclude cases where other type-setting tools would be more appropriate.

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