set_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it reveals automatic delta recomputation, paired .info updates, and the cascading effect on descendants when editing system or bundled profiles. It does not cover backup behavior or reversibility, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the force qualification is placed in the second sentence without unnecessary explanation.

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 5 parameters, a nested values object, no output schema, and no annotation coverage. The description explains core side effects but leaves too much unresolved for correct invocation, especially the meanings of type, name, backup, and the expected structure of values.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 5 parameters, but it only adds meaning for force=True. It does not explain what type means, how name selects a profile, what shape values should take, or what backup does. This is a significant gap for required 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-resource pair ('Set profile values') and the word 'Editing' makes clear this modifies existing profiles. It is readily distinguished from siblings like create_profile, rename_profile, delete_profile, and read-oriented tools such as get_profile or list_profiles.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_profile or normalize_profile. The force=True note is a requirement for system/bundled profiles, not a tool-selection condition, and no exclusions or fallback tools are mentioned.

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