set_domain_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: overwriting on same name, prepending stored context to subsequent prompts, and explicit limits (20KB per context, 16 named contexts max). No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, then details parameter behavior and limits. No wasted words; every sentence earns 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers behavior, limits, and parameter semantics. It is complete for a storage/write tool, though a brief note on output (e.g., confirmation) would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains text_or_path's dual interpretation (file vs inline). The 'name' parameter's default and overwrite behavior is implied but not explicitly detailed. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Register a domain context (SOP, glossary, process description) under name.' It uses specific verbs (register) and resources (domain context), and distinguishes from its sibling 'get_domain_context' by being the write counterpart.

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 explains when to use the tool (registering context) and how text_or_path is interpreted. It also mentions overwrite behavior and prepending to prompts. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the presence of a sibling 'get' tool implies the set version for creation/update.

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