set_post_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the bulk-replace/overwrite behavior, which is important. But it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to existing cards beyond 'replace'. This is adequate but minimal.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and input expectations.

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 only 3 parameters and a fully described input schema, the description provides the core replacement semantics and input shape. It doesn't explicitly cover rerender or output, but those are visible in the schema and are not critical for selecting the tool.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by specifying that card objects contain 'title, body, and optional number', which clarifies the expected structure beyond the schema's property list.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bulk-replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('all carousel cards for a post'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_post_cards (read-only) and edit_post_card (single-card edit).

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 clearly implies this is for full replacement by saying 'Provide a full array of card objects', which differentiates it from single-card editing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., edit_post_card) or state when not to use it.

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