set_util_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'Set' but does not state whether the utility must exist, whether existing params are overwritten, or what happens on failure. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes a concrete example. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but omits critical context like the requirement for an existing utility, the effect on previous parameter names, and any error handling. It is adequate but not complete.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'params' are ordered and gives an example, which adds meaning. However, it does not explain the 'name' parameter, leaving the agent to guess that it identifies the utility. 'project' is covered by the schema description.

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 a clear resource ('shared utility function's ordered parameter names'), with an explicit example (['sql', 'params']). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_util_body and get_util by naming exactly what it modifies.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_util_body or create_util. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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