set_currency_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It adds context about what the currency unit affects (display next to gold amounts), but it does not explicitly mention that this setting persists or mutates project state. The mutation is implied by 'Set' but not elaborated.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose and examples without any fluff. It is perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, provides examples, and the schema covers both parameters (including dryRun). The only gap is not mentioning potential side effects, but for a simple setter this is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('G', 'Gold') for the 'unit' parameter, which helps the agent understand the expected format. It does not address 'dryRun', but the schema already explains it fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('currency unit'), with clarifying context ('shown next to gold amounts') and examples. It clearly distinguishes the tool from any sibling tools, none of which relate to currency units.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool (when needing to change the displayed currency unit). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, but the tool's purpose is so specific that alternatives are not necessary.

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