mt_set_transform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'sets' transformed HTML, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., overwriting existing HTML, triggering updates). It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, which is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose, with no wasted verbiage.

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 the complexity of a mutation tool (setting HTML on items) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'transformed' implies, how this interacts with other tools (e.g., 'mt_apply_changes'), or what happens after setting the HTML. For a tool that likely modifies content in a system, more detail on behavior and integration is needed.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (itemType, itemId, afterHtml). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'transformed HTML' means, how itemType relates to the itemId, or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra insights.

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 ('設定します' - sets) and the target ('変換後のHTML' - transformed HTML) on individual items. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mt_set_bulk_transform' by specifying '個別のアイテム' (individual items), though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'transform' means in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mt_set_bulk_transform' for bulk operations, or when to use it in relation to other tools such as 'mt_apply_changes' or 'mt_generate_diff_report'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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