replaceStickerInSet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact side-effect sequence (delete, add, reposition) and the return value (True on success), which is strong transparency. It does not discuss permissions, atomicity, or failure cases, but the disclosed composition is the most important trait.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the equivalent operation and return value. No filler or repetition.

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 the important side effects and return type, while the 100%-covered schema handles parameter details. Without an output schema or annotations, there is still no explicit permissions/prereqs note, but the definition is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3; the description does not need to redefine params. It lightly maps 'existing sticker' to old_sticker and 'new one' to sticker, but adds no format details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific action ('Replace an existing sticker in a sticker set with a new one'), naming both the object and the mutation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it is equivalent to deleteStickerFromSet + addStickerToSet + setStickerPositionInSet.

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 equivalence line implies this is a combined replacement operation rather than using the individual sibling calls, but the description never explicitly says when to choose it or when to prefer addStickerToSet/deleteStickerFromSet. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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