set_product_context

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining that Andru actually reads the homepage, that the context persists and is reused, and that it is free. It never states what happens to previously saved context on a re-call, which is the notable remaining gap for an idempotent-claimed write.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (purpose, inputs, persistence effect, retrieval mode, cost). The telegraphic fragments are efficient, though the ordering of 'Free' at the very end is a small afterthought.

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?

With no output schema the description appropriately covers both the write path and the read-back path (call with no arguments), which is what an agent needs to use this tool correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as overwrite semantics or how long ingestion of a website takes.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented with examples in the schema. The prose adds only the mutually-exclusive intent of website vs. productDescription, not new format or constraint detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it sets the product context that Andru persists. The description makes the intent unmistakable and clearly separates it from the read-side siblings (get_*) by framing it as the one-time write that feeds all later calls.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two input paths (website vs. short product description) and adds a third no-argument mode for inspecting what was saved, plus 'every later call uses it'. It omits an explicit when-not-to-use or routing against a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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