pcb_set_market

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates the session's question pack and standards shortlist, and clarifies append/replace semantics through examples. Could mention prerequisites or side effects, but it is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second gives examples, and the third explains the effect and recommended call order. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, effect on the session, and workflow ordering. The schema supplies complete parameter details, including sub_options. It does not explain the return value, but for a setter with no output schema, that is acceptable.

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 schema fully describes each parameter, but the description adds contextual meaning by showing how market_id and replace interact (switching vs adding) and the consequence for the question pack. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond field-level details.

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 the action ('Set or add a market') and the resource ('an existing review session'), with concrete examples. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on analysis or other session operations.

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?

It provides clear usage context ('Call before pcb_get_review_questions to receive the merged pack') and explains what the tool updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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