set_view_cover

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details: passing null removes the cover, and the two optional fields are independent (setting one doesn't affect the other). This provides valuable context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers the core functionality, including edge cases (null removal, field independence). It could optionally mention that no change occurs if only required params are passed, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter meaning (null removes cover) but does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema descriptions. The independence of fields is a minor addition.

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 'cover-image field and crop/fit mode', scoped to 'Kanban or Gallery views'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_view_columns or set_view_cell_wrap, which handle different view properties.

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 implies usage for Kanban or Gallery views and mentions how to remove the cover (pass null), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools. Given sibling context, no alternative exists for cover images, so guidance is clear enough.

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