set_repl_cwd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., effect on existing shells, persistence, error handling, or authorization requirements). This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, but it is too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral details. Every sentence should earn its place; here it omits essential context.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter constraints, leaving the agent without critical information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning but does not. It fails to explain what 'path' should be (absolute/relative) or 'repl_id' format. The schema titles alone are insufficient.

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 tool changes a REPL's tracked working directory, specifying the verb 'Change' and the resource 'REPL's tracked working directory'. It distinguishes from sibling get_repl_cwd, which likely retrieves the current directory.

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 implies usage when the agent needs to update the working directory for future shell calls, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or context relative to siblings are provided.

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