set_sticker_emoji_list

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description only restates 'Change' and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether the list is replaced wholesale, validation rules, or ownership requirements).

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 with 10 words, immediately stating the action and object. No wasted words, front-loaded, appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, description should disclose critical behavior like whether the existing emoji list is replaced or merged, and any prerequisites (e.g., ownership of sticker set). The one-line description leaves these gaps, relying entirely on annotations for safety context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It names 'list of emoji' and 'sticker' but does not explain format, constraints, or how the emoji_list should be constructed. It adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 'Change' and names the resource 'list of emoji associated with a sticker'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_sticker_keywords or set_sticker_mask_position by focusing on emoji_list.

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: use this when you want to modify the emoji list of a sticker. However, it offers no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not guidance. The context is clear but not differentiated from other sticker setters.

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