set_premise

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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/read-only-false behavior, and the description adds useful specifics: it overwrites any existing premise, is read by the daemon at startup, and affects both soul.md and PROGRAM.md. This goes beyond the annotation bits without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: core action, daemon/seeding context, and overwrite warning. No filler and the key verb-first statement is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter setter with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient: it explains effect, side-effect files, startup relevance, and the safe edit path. No output schema exists, so no return-value obligation.

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 explain the single text parameter. It implies that text is the premise content ('write/overwrite the story premise'), but it never explicitly maps text to the new premise or mentions format/length constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write or overwrite the story premise as soul.md plus PROGRAM.md.' It also distinguishes the operation from get_premise by emphasizing replacement, so an agent can tell setter from getter.

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 gives clear situational guidance: overwrites any existing premise, so use get_premise first if you want to edit rather than replace. This explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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