set_source_root

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses persistence ('remembered for this tape') and the verification outcome (hash=ok vs hash=MISMATCH, mismatch reported not silent). It omits whether re-calling overwrites an existing mapping, whether a bad prefix is rejected, and what an invalid local_dir does.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core mapping action, and the version-specific example earns its space by making compiled_prefix concrete. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains the effect, the persistence scope, and the verification semantics that a caller needs. The remaining gap is operational: no error behavior and no guidance on obtaining the tape_id.

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 carry all three parameters. It does reasonably: compiled_prefix gets a concrete example value and local_dir is defined relationally, but tape_id is only alluded to via 'this tape' with no hint where the id comes from (e.g., list_tapes), and no format expectations are given for any field.

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?

Specific verb ('map') and specific resources (compiled source prefix on the tape -> local directory), plus the downstream effect on 'at FILE:LINE' and 'origin' output. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like load_tape or inspect_tape, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 motivation is clear (so source locations can be shown), which implies the situation to use it, but there is no explicit trigger ('call after load_tape', 'when paths are unresolved') and no stated alternative or when-not-to-use guidance among the nine sibling tools.

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