set_storage_place_pitch

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Set value' without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. The agent gains no insight beyond the tool name.

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 extremely short (7 words), but this is underspecification, not conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load critical details.

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 presence of many sibling tools, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow.

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 0%, yet the description adds negligible meaning. It mentions 'deck A or B' but does not specify valid values for the 'deck' parameter (e.g., 'A' vs 'B') or any range/units for 'value'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Set value on deck A or B' is vague. It does not specify what 'value' refers to, even though the tool name indicates 'pitch'. It fails to distinguish this tool from many similar set_* tools like set_storage_deck_a or set_storage_place_filter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools with similar 'set' verbs, the description provides no context or exclusion criteria.

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