set_env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the persistent nature of the change across run_command calls, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing values, distro scoping, or any permission requirements. The persistence trait lifts it above a bare 'set' description.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most important behavioral qualifier. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits the optional 'distro' parameter and does not clarify whether the variable is set in the default distro or one specified by the parameter. The persistence behavior is covered, but without more parameter or default-scope context the description is not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter documentation. It does not explain the 'distro' parameter at all, and while 'name' and 'value' are self-explanatory, the lack of any parameter detail leaves the optional distro behavior ambiguous.

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 the specific action 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an environment variable in the persistent WSL shell.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_env (which reads) and run_command (which executes commands), and the parenthetical persistence note adds key scope.

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 phrase 'persists across run_command calls' gives a clear context for when to use this tool: to prepare environment variables for later shell commands. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficient to differentiate it from get_env and set_cwd.

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