Set learn pages

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that the tool sets the draft's editorial pages, expects a JSON list of title/content objects, and that '[]' clears the pages. It doesn't mention that 'null' also clears, but the schema covers that, and annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the input format and clearing behavior are stated immediately and efficiently.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema and matching annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what input to pass, and how to clear pages. Omitted details like the null clearing option and response shape are already in the schema/output schema.

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%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already says about pages_json ('JSON list of {"title", "content"}' and '[]' to clear). The description adds little beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Set'), a clear object ('a draft's editorial pages'), and explains what those pages are ('post-contest explanation shown with the problem'). This distinguishes it from the many build_* sibling tools that update statements, generators, or testcases.

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 clear operational context—it targets a draft's editorial/learn pages and shows the expected input and clearing behavior. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is unique enough among siblings that no alternative is needed.

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