Set chid

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: on save the CHID is normalized to the .fds deck filename, so a value set here is transient. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 two prose sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-006, GEN-010, GEN-016 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' line is opaque boilerplate whose intent is not decodable from the description alone.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key side effect, and the persistence limit. Only the rules-reference line leaves anything unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that CHID is the Case Heading Identifier and that output filenames depend on it, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — setting the simulation CHID (spelled out as Case Heading Identifier) plus an optional title. No sibling tool competes for this resource, so explicit differentiation isn't required, though none is offered.

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 persistence caveat ('CHID set here only persists until the next save') tells the agent when this setting actually matters versus when it will be overwritten. No alternatives are named, but there is no obvious competing tool for this operation.

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