setMyShortDescription

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies the operation as a mutation ('Change') and states the success return value, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as overwriting an existing short description or the removal behavior associated with an empty string, though some of that is captured in the parameter schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the added details about where the text appears and the success return value are both relevant and economically expressed.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, states the effect, and describes the return value despite there being no output schema. It lacks an explicit pointer to the closely related setMyDescription, but that omission is more of a routing nicety than a critical completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents language_code and short_description, including the empty-string removal behavior. The description adds only the display context of the short description and does not need to repeat parameter details. This matches the baseline score for fully documented parameters.

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 ('Change') and a specific resource ('the bot's short description'), and adds useful context about where it appears (profile page, alongside links). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it in effect from the similarly named setMyDescription, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 explains what the operation does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like setMyDescription or getMyShortDescription. An agent must infer from the purpose that this is the right call when the bot's short description should be changed, so usage direction is only implied.

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