set_taxonomy_path

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses key behaviors: path must exist and be a file, refusal of non-existent or directory targets to prevent silent disable, dry_run validation and preview, return code 'dry_run', and effect on restart.

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?

Description is 7 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient use of 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?

Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, constraints, access level, effect timing, return behavior. Complete for a config-update tool.

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 0%, but description adds substantial meaning: path must exist and be a regular file; dry_run=true validates and previews without modifying config.toml. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 (Update) and resource (taxonomy file path persisted in config.toml), and explains the purpose (informs model interpretation of task semantics). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_taxonomy_file which focus on analysis, not configuration.

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?

Provides context such as access level (CONTRIBUTOR) and effect timing (next restart). However, lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, though sibling analysis implies uniqueness.

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