builds__app_encryption_declaration__set

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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-destructiveness, and write nature. The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) but does not expand on behavioral details like whether setting a declaration replaces an existing one or what happens on the server side. No contradiction with annotations.

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, clear sentence plus the endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple operation, it lacks context about the return value (no output schema), the effect on existing declarations, and any constraints (e.g., only one declaration per build). More details would help an agent use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters sufficiently. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the operation name. Baseline 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 the action (Set) and the resources involved (app encryption declaration and build), distinguishing it from sibling tools like builds__app_encryption_declaration__get (which retrieves) and builds__update (which modifies build attributes). The endpoint URL provides additional clarity.

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 implies when to use (to link a declaration to a build) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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