set_synonyms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool merges into an existing schema, creates a flat list, and has a default culture behavior. It also notes the complexity of the Q&A linguistic schema as a limitation. However, it does not mention potential side effects beyond merging, such as whether existing synonyms are overwritten, 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?

The description is informative and reasonably concise, packed into two sentences with a note. Each sentence contributes value: purpose, parameter guidance, and a critical scope caveat. It could be slightly more front-loaded, but it is not verbose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential semantic context: what it does, how parameters work, and its limitations. It does not address return values, but that is often not needed for set-style operations. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is high (83%), and the description mostly repeats what the schema already states (e.g., objectType values, comma-separated synonyms, culture default). It adds a small amount of context about the flat nature of the synonyms list, but overall provides little new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool adds Q&A natural-language synonyms for a model object with a concrete example ('revenue'/'turnover' map to a 'Sales' measure). It specifies the relevant object types and the scope (flat per-entity list), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like set_qna_phrasing, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 gives contextual usage guidance by explaining objectType-specific requirements (pass the table for column/measure/hierarchy) and notes the limitation that richer phrasings require a hand-authored schema. It implies when not to use the tool, but does not name a specific alternative tool, making it slightly short of a full 5.

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