set_authors_address

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set,' implying a write operation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting existing address, document requirements) or any idempotency concerns.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks necessary details to be fully useful, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description omits important context: what state the document should be in, whether the address is appended or replaced, and any validation constraints. It does not fully cover the tool's behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions (RFCDocument, Authors address). It does not explain how the address is used or formatted.

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 (authors address section of an RFC document). It distinguishes from siblings like set_authors or get_authors_address. However, it closely mirrors the tool name, adding only the document context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_authors_address for reading, or set_authors for other author details). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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