KIROK_set_bank_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, whether it overwrites existing config, or if any permissions are required. Only parameter purpose is explained.

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 concise (6 lines) with a clear top-line summary and structured parameter descriptions. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundant or missing information.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like overwrite semantics or error handling, which would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose: bank_id as the target, retain_mission as entities/keywords to extract, and observations_mission as patterns to consolidate. The 'Args' section adds meaningful context beyond parameter titles.

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 tool's action ('Configure a memory bank's retain and observations missions') with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like KIROK_get_bank_config, KIROK_clear_bank, etc., by focusing on setting configuration.

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 does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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