firestarter_set_market_handle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context beyond that: the handle is stable even if the share code is rotated, resolves to the same market, and must be unique with API rejections for taken/reserved/share-code-shaped strings. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two sentences, none wasted. The first sentence states the action and output format; the second covers usage and constraints. Well-structured and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema needed, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, its stability behavior, and uniqueness constraints. The information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already provides detailed semantics for both parameters (pattern, length, uniqueness for handle; source for program_id). The description adds some context about the handle being for a community URL and stable, but this largely repeats schema information. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Claim or change the vanity handle for a market you already own.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from firestarter_create_market (which creates the market) by specifying it operates on an existing owned market. The URL format and connection to share codes further clarify purpose.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'Use when an owner wants a memorable community link, or to rename an existing handle.' It also mentions the prerequisite of owning a market from firestarter_create_market. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough, so a 4 is appropriate.

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