Set Agent Prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the requirement of an agent id from specific tools and the alternative-to-append context. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond replacement (e.g., irreversibility) or permission requirements beyond 'Operator-driven'. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description provides moderate added value.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds the alternative and requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple replace operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the alternative, and how to obtain the required agent id. Annotations handle idempotency and destructive hints. It does not mention reversibility or effects on existing content beyond replacement, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The soulMd description 'Replace SOUL.MD contents. Pass empty string to clear.' and agentId description 'Alias for `agentIdOrAddress` - either name is accepted, pass whichever you have.' add meaningful semantics. The main description does not elaborate on parameters, relying on the schema. Since coverage is moderate and descriptions are helpful, a score of 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 a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('Agent's SOUL.MD'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'ethora-agent-soul-append' by labeling itself as the alternative to append. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 notes it is 'Operator-driven' and 'alternative to -append', giving some context for when to use it over the append tool. It also specifies a prerequisite: an agent id or address from 'ethora-agents-list-v2' or 'ethora-agents-create-v2'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to other set/update tools.

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