set_skill

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 it returns updated stats and allows multi-line input for supports, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing skill), prerequisites (e.g., having an active build), or error handling. Some behavioral context is given, but more would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences concisely state the purpose, format, and return value with no extraneous information. The description is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a simple input, the description covers the input format and return value. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., an active build must exist) and error conditions. Given the complexity, it is nearly complete but lacks some context.

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 fully explains its format, including examples and support for multiple gems. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare type definition.

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?

Clearly states the tool sets the active build's main skill using Path of Building's paste format. The verb 'set' and resource 'active build's main skill' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_skills' and 'get_gem'.

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?

Description gives a clear context for using the tool (setting the main skill) and the required format, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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