Set Options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly establishes this as a state-changing POST operation, notes it applies at runtime, and provides a safe discovery pathway for valid keys. While it doesn't detail auth requirements, failure behavior, or persistence semantics, it does convey the mutating nature and provides practical guardrails for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The first establishes the core purpose and the second explains the payload format and directs users to discovery resources. Every element 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to construct the payload, and where to find valid keys. The absence of an output schema and lack of detail on return values or error behavior are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity, but the description is largely complete for its purpose.

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% for the single 'options' parameter, which is described as an 'Option name → value map.' The description adds a lightweight example format ('{name: value, ...}') and points to discovery tools, but the schema already documents the structure. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding deep new meaning.

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 construction ('Set UI/server options at runtime') that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sdnext_get_options and sdnext_options_info by explicitly pointing the reader to those tools for discovering valid keys, making the scope of this tool clear.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for runtime mutation of options and directs users to read-only alternatives (sdnext_get_options / sdnext_options_info) for key discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list other alternative scenarios beyond key discovery, leaving some implied usage.

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