set_skill

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: replacement of skill group, preservation of other groups, cosmetic nature of support gems in PoE2, error handling (returns ok:false on failure), and return of updated stats plus ProjectileCount/dpsNote.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: starts with purpose, then format, then side effects, then fallback, then return. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values explained), the description covers all necessary aspects: format, behavior, error handling, return values, and distinguishes from sibling. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 single parameter 'skill' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates with detailed format explanations: examples, accepted delimiters, default level/quality for supports. This adds crucial meaning beyond the input schema.

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 it sets the active build's MAIN skill (gem + support gems) in PoB paste format. It uses a specific verb 'set' and resource 'active build's main skill', distinguishing it from sibling 'add_skill_group' which handles persistent buffs.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use versus not: 'For persistent buffs, use add_skill_group.' It also notes that this REPLACES the current main skill group while preserving auras/heralds/buffs added via `add_skill_group`. Additionally, it describes the fallback behavior on parse failure.

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