set_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write-permission precondition, but that is largely duplicated by the schema's 'must be writable' description, and it says nothing about overwrite semantics, persistence, downstream effects, or failure behavior on a non-writable record.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the permission constraint second. Nothing here fails to earn its place.

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 three-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers what and on what, but omits write semantics (replacement vs merge), persistence, and error behavior. It is adequate but leaves the mutation contract underspecified.

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% (value type constraint, endpoint formats, record_name writability), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter detail, making the documented baseline of 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Set the value of a writable record') and scopes it to write-permitted records, which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_record and list_records. It does not differentiate itself from mutation siblings such as rename_record or remove_record, so it falls short of a 5.

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 precondition 'Only works for records with write permissions' implies when the tool is applicable, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use rename_record to change the name, resolve_proposal for schema changes). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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