set_protocol_steps

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

The description highlights the destructive nature ('completely overwritten'), which is important, but lacks other behavioral details such as required permissions, atomicity, or error handling. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. 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?

The description covers the main intent and destructive behavior well, but could mention the return value or behavior with invalid protocol_id. Given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, it is mostly complete.

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 100% description coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reiterates the 'replace entire steps list' idea but does not elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 verb 'replace' and the resource 'the entire steps list of a specific protocol', and it explicitly distinguishes from siblings like add_protocol_step and delete_protocol_step by noting that existing steps are completely overwritten.

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 use when overwriting all steps, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when only adding or removing individual steps, the siblings should be used). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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