set_description

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

The description discloses that it 'clear its stale flag' which is a behavioral effect beyond the basic write operation. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the burden for transparency. It doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing descriptions, if it requires certain permissions, or if it's idempotent. But it does mention the side effect of clearing the stale flag, which is useful. Given no annotations, it provides some behavioral context but not comprehensive. I'll give 3.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It states the action and side effect without unnecessary detail. No fluff, so I'll give 4.

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?

The tool has a simple operation with one side effect, and the description captures the main point. However, there is no information about return values (output schema exists but description doesn't mention what it returns), and no guidance on error conditions or prerequisites. With no annotations, some additional context could be expected, but the core functionality is clear enough. I'll give 3.

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 schema has properties but very little description (only titles), and the description does not explain the meaning of the parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'root_path' vs 'path' mean: likely 'root_path' and 'path' and description, but the description covers the purpose of each? The description only says 'path in root_path's index' but doesn't define 'root_path' or 'path' clearly, and doesn't describe the 'description' parameter beyond being a one-line description. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't sufficiently. I'll give 2.

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 action ('Write a one-line description') and the target ('path in root_path's index'), and specifies an additional effect ('clear its stale flag'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stale_files (which would retrieve stale files) and search_files, but it doesn't explicitly mention that it's part of an index, which might be a specific verb+resource and mentions two distinct actions, but no alternate tool named. The description provides a specific verb, not clear: it's like set_description directly—the purpose, though the description is clear about the description, but it's not a verb+resource+scope, but it's a clear and correct for the phrase 'write a one-line description' on a path in an index, clearing the stale flag, so it's clear that it's a write operation to the index, but it doesn't explicitly mention that abound公有hank Equalowler audio喵 (for clarity, the description adds a verb+忡宾客: I think it's 4, but it's sufficient, as the description is clear enough to contrast with 'get' tools like get_repo_map, get_stale_files, but it doesn't explicitly name them. However, it does provide a specific action and scope, so I'll give 4.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance, but no when to use this tool, but the description implies that it's a specific: actually the description implies that the description only shows a single line, but the description does not mention when to use this vs alternatives like search_files or index_repository, but the context suggests it's used to set descriptions, but the description doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions. Since it's a clear is a straightforward task, I'll give 3 as it's implied usage.

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