set_screen_group_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces (overwrites) the membership and enforces a limit of 100 screen IDs. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or transactionality.

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?

One sentence clearly conveys the purpose and a key constraint. No extraneous information. Front-loaded 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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks mention of prerequisites or validation, but is nearly complete for this use case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It implies group_id identifies the group and screen_ids are the new member IDs, with a cap of 100. This adds marginal value over the schema's type-only definitions.

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 (replace), the resource (screen group's membership), and a constraint (up to 100 screen IDs). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_screen_group_members (read) and add_screen_group_playlist_items (different operation).

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 implies the tool is for fully replacing membership, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like adding/removing members. No prerequisites or context for when not to use it.

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