aa_set_run_meta

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — critically, it does not say whether setting one field overwrites or merges with existing metadata, which is the key behavioral question for a 'set meta' tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the enumeration format consumes its length on field names already visible in the schema.

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?

With 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a mutation that touches report state, the description is too thin — it omits overwrite/merge semantics, the meaning of the two enum fields, and the role of the required workspace.

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 must carry the burden, but it only restates field names in prose without explaining values — e.g. what 'coverage' vs 'run_status' mean or how they differ, or what 'changes' and 'limitations' should contain. The required 'workspace' parameter is not even mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('working report' metadata), then enumerates the fields it writes. This lets an agent know it is a metadata-writer rather than a content-writer, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like aa_upsert_section or aa_finish.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus aa_start, aa_finish, or the upsert tools, and no prerequisites or sequencing hints. The agent must infer that this is used mid-run to record report metadata.

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