set_protocols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does communicate the destructive overwrite semantics ('replace all current protocols'), which is the key behavioral trait. But it doesn't disclose side effects on protocol progress or tracking state, especially relevant given the sibling tick_protocol.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to the meaning and the destructive scope is stated up front.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter replacement operation, but with no annotations and no output schema it could disclose more: side effects on protocol progress/state, error behavior, or reversibility. The description covers the core intent but leaves operational consequences to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented protocols parameter. It adds the crucial meaning that the array is the complete replacement set, but it gives no semantics for the name or time fields beyond the schema's bare structural constraints.

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 (replace), resource (protocols), and scope (all current ones). The phrase 'all current protocols' clearly distinguishes it from incremental siblings like add_protocol and remove_protocol without needing to open their schemas.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you want a wholesale replacement rather than one-at-a-time edits via add_protocol/remove_protocol. However, no sibling alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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