set_personal_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description sufficiently discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation, requires user confirmation, explains the side effects of omitting optional parameters (keeps existing values) and how to clear tags (pass []), and includes a warning against putting secrets in the description or tags. An example further clarifies usage.

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 concise, starting with the core purpose and then adding necessary detail. It uses clear language and provides an example. Minor redundancy in warning about secrets ('non-secret' and 'never put secrets') but overall well-structured and efficient.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the context signals, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameter behavior, and usage guidelines. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains that field and value are required, describes the optional description and tags, clarifies their behavior when omitted (keeps existing) or cleared ([]), and warns about secrets. The example concretely illustrates parameter order and values.

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 explicitly states the tool adds or updates a personal-info field. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_personal_info, get_personal_info, list_tags, and search_personal_info, which handle deletion, retrieval, listing, and searching respectively.

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 highlights that this is a write operation requiring user confirmation ('WRITE — confirm with the user first'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of siblings implies read-only alternatives. The guidance for confirming with the user is clear and actionable.

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