origin_set_options

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 reveals that this is a lookup operation (not a mutation), warns about the risk of guessing, and explains the `verified` field as indicating whether an option has been tested against a real Origin. This goes beyond a simple 'searches options' statement and sets accurate expectations about reliability. It doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist).

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 and well-structured, with the purpose stated first, followed by contextual warnings and a useful note about the `verified` field. Every sentence contributes value; there is no filler. It could potentially add a line about parameter usage, but the current length is appropriate.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. With only two optional parameters and no required ones, the missing parameter semantics are the main gap. The description covers purpose, usage context, and reliability, but leaves parameter details unexplained. For a lookup tool with this complexity, the description is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It does not explain `limit` or `search` at all. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description doesn't specify how `search` matches (e.g., by control name, option value, or what the option controls). The description says 'look up ... by what they control,' implying search matches by the thing it controls, but this is not explicit. This is a significant gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Look up LabTalk `set` options by what they control.' It names the resource (LabTalk set options) and the action (look up), and the added context about unguessable names clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like origin_plot_option_get/set, which deal with plot options rather than general set options.

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 explicitly advises using this tool instead of guessing option names, which is practical usage guidance. It also explains the consequence of guessing (Origin accepts and ignores plausible names). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling set includes plot option tools which are clearly different in scope. The guidance is clear and context-rich, though it could have been more explicit about when not to use it.

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