set_background

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

Annotations declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: setting an empty image clears the background, and the accepted value set is enumerated. It stops short of saying the prior background is replaced or whether the change is undoable, so not a 5.

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 action and scope, then the value options and the clearing behavior. Efficient and free of filler, though the background-name enumeration slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a three-parameter, non-nested tool, the description covers target, accepted values, and the edge case of clearing – nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3 – the enum list and the empty-clears semantics in the description largely restate the schema's own parameter docs. No extra syntax or format detail (e.g., path constraints for the image file) is added 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Paper a physical location ... with a background image') and precisely scopes the target: a physical location, or the logical workspace when no location is given. An agent can distinguish this from neighbors like list_locations or move_to_location without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the condition that selects the workspace-vs-location behavior ('or the logical workspace when no location is given'). It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling competes for this exact job, so context is clear.

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