set_backend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains key behaviors: create/update/remove via the 'remove' parameter, local vs cloud with 'local', and optional API key. However, it omits details about file modification persistence or required permissions, which would enhance transparency.

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 moderately concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter definitions in a bullet-like format. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly verbose with the 'Args:' prefix and multiple lines.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, create/update/delete operations, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers essential aspects. It explains all parameters and actions, though it could optionally mention the return format or error handling, which is partially mitigated by the output schema.

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 compensate. It richly describes all 7 parameters, including allowed characters for 'name', auto-resolve for 'default_model', and protocol selection. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default fields.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create, update, or remove a custom backend in custom_backends.json.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('backend'), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like list_backends and refresh_backends which handle listing and refreshing.

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 lists parameters and actions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the parameter descriptions.

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