set_avatar_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to other parameters, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what parameters are available, what the value types correspond to, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (parameter_name and value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters exist, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

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 'Set a parameter on the current avatar' clearly states the action (set) and target (parameter on avatar), but it's vague about what parameters exist or what this affects. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_avatar_parameters' (read vs. write) but doesn't specify scope beyond 'current avatar'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_avatar' or 'set_emote_parameter'. It implies usage for parameter modification but doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to guess based on sibling names alone.

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