update_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It partially discloses the warning behavior but omits other important aspects such as irreversibility, permission requirements, error states, and what happens to existing focus data.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action. However, it is somewhat under-specified; conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 tool with 5 parameters (4 required) and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral details leaves the agent underinformed.

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 input schema contains 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no explanations for any parameter (e.g., what 'focus' is, structure of 'paths', constraints on 'agent_name'). An agent would have to guess parameter meaning.

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 action ('Update this agent's focus') and the specific resource, including a unique behavior ('warn on overlaps with other non-stale agents'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly concerned with facts, events, and jobs.

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, nor are any preconditions or exclusion criteria mentioned. An agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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