set_library_search_order

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'set', which implies a mutation, but does not disclose consequences such as whether the order is replaced entirely, session-specific effects, permissions required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. There is zero waste—every word contributes meaning. It is optimally concise for its content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical behavioral context: what an 'explicit order' means in practice, whether it replaces or merges with existing orders, and how it affects keyword resolution across sessions. Since annotations are missing, the description should fill this gap but does not.

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 both parameters well-documented ('Library names in priority order (highest first)' and 'Session to apply the search order to'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Set' and the resource 'library search order', with the purpose 'for keyword resolution'. It is distinct from siblings like manage_library_plugins and recommend_libraries, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb and resource are specific enough to differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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