emet_setup_complete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds substance beyond them: every write is read-back verified, bot-tag refusal, and the key safety nuance that on re-run prior versions are archived, never destroyed. That directly informs the agent about irreversibility and preconditions.

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?

Front-loads the scoping statement ('First-time setup, the owner's only') and packs multiple constraints into a tight block. Slightly dense and repeats the bot-tag refusal that also appears in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive, bot-refusing, non-idempotent mutation with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, re-run semantics, and archival behavior well. It does not state what the tool returns, which is the only notable gap.

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 schema already documents source, answers, and reissue. The description adds context (owner-only, explicit-word requirement for reissue, refusal otherwise) but no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific effect (record interview answers into bootstrap/IDENTITY.md, CHARACTER.md, USER.md plus an identity-layer entry, and create the owner person) with a clear actor/scope ('the owner's only'). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like emet_initialize, emet_status, and write_doc.

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 explicit when-to-use ('First-time setup'), when-not ('Refused under a bot tag'; refused on an already-set-up store unless reissue is true), and the escape hatch (reissue = owner's explicit word). Conditions for selecting the behavior are fully spelled out.

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