legal_put_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses merge semantics ('only the keys given change'), a clear-field side effect ('empty string clears a field'), a broad side effect ('regenerates every generated document'), and a version requirement. Missing only permissions/auth and reversibility nuance, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then behavior, then the version constraint. Zero padding; every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: what changes, the clearing convention, and the document-regeneration side effect. Lacking any statement about permissions or failure modes, but otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for the 'facts' object: the merge contract and the empty-string-clears convention are not stated in the schema. That elevates it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set Impressum fields'. Combined with the schema naming 'facts', an agent can tell this is the writer counterpart to legal_get_facts. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with legal_update_settings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives the essential operational context (merge semantics, version floor) but never states when to reach for this tool versus legal_update_settings or legal_put_facts alternatives, nor any prerequisites/auth. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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