firestarter_set_market_handle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: handle stability across share-code rotation, resolution equivalence, and uniqueness enforcement. It does not describe what happens to the old handle after a rename, but that is minor given the annotation safety profile.

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 pack the entire purpose, usage, and a key constraint with zero redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place. No filler.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operational details: ownership prerequisite, use case, stability, and uniqueness rejection. It might benefit from noting whether the handle change is reversible or affects existing links, but these are minor given the annotation safety hints and schema completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both handle and program_id, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship: program_id comes from firestarter_create_market, and handle's stability and uniqueness are reinforced. This bridges the parameters to the tool's purpose beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim or change the vanity handle for a market you already own'. It clearly states the outcome (URL becomes firestarter.network/m/<handle>) and distinguishes this from related sibling tools like firestarter_create_market (creating a market) or firestarter_update_market (other settings). The mention of 'from firestarter_create_market' anchors its dependency without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when an owner wants a memorable community link, or to rename an existing handle.' It also provides a hard constraint ('must be unique across Firestarter' and rejection conditions) which guides the agent in anticipating failures. While it doesn't enumerate alternatives, the use-case framing is precise and self-contained.

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