Edit set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful partial-update semantics ("only the fields given change") and permission constraints, but the garbled phrase "privat only the owner" and the opaque reference to "rules of its edit page" leave the mutation behavior only partially explained.

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 short and front-loads the core action, which is good. But the second clause "by the rules of its edit page" is vague filler and "privat only the owner" is malformed, reducing clarity without adding useful detail.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation tool with 8 parameters and only 38% schema coverage, and it has no output schema. The description covers partial updates and permissions but omits parameter meaning, expected effects, and error/authorization behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters, so the schema leaves several fields (name, sort, set_id, private, description) undocumented. The description does not explain any individual parameter, adding only the general "only the fields given change" note, which is insufficient to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Changes a set of the account") and clarifies partial-update behavior ("only the fields given change"). However, "by the rules of its edit page" is vague and defers the actual semantics to an external page, so an agent cannot fully determine what the tool does from the definition alone.

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?

It mentions who may invoke it ("Owner and moderators; privat only the owner"), which is authorization context rather than usage guidance. It does not explain when to choose this over siblings like edit_track, add_to_set, or delete_set, nor does it state preconditions or exclusions.

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