set_macro_line

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return type but does not mention destructive or mutation traits, permissions, side effects, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with Args and Examples sections, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter names in Args). Could be more concise, but front-loads purpose effectively.

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 4 parameters, 3 required, no enums, and presence of output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and return type. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context for a mutation tool, making it adequate but not complete.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter beyond just titles: macro_id as 'Macro number', line as 'Line number within the macro', command with example, and pool with default. This adds meaningful context.

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 'Set the command for a specific line within a macro', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_macro, read_macro_lines, and run_macro by focusing on setting a line's command.

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 through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_macro_lines. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., macro must exist) or 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.