Set an Omarchy application default

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it updates agent state, performs before/after verification, supports dry-run, and does not invoke the install-and-launch setter. These are meaningful behavioral traits that go beyond a simple 'set' statement, though it does not discuss potential side effects or failure modes.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then adds key details (verification, state update, dry-run) without extraneous language. It is immediately scannable and every sentence adds value.

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 covers the core function, it lacks information on how the tool selects which default to set (since there are no parameters) and what the expected outcome looks like. The absence of an output schema heightens this gap, as the agent cannot infer return values or success criteria beyond the vague 'before/after verification'.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (empty object), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related confusion; it even implies that the tool operates on a broad category of defaults rather than a specific named one.

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 it sets defaults for browsers, editors, terminals, or coding agents, which is a specific action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'omarchy_defaults' (which likely lists defaults), though the setter intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that 'omarchy_defaults' should be used to view current defaults, or when this setter is appropriate. The description focuses on how it works, not when to choose it.

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