set_system_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the dry-run preview behavior and its default, which is valuable for a mutation tool. However it says nothing about persistence, required permissions, or side effects of a real (dry_run=false) 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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded on the action with the safety-relevant dry-run default appended. No wasted words, though it is arguably too sparse for a mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all four params are accounted for. Still, a write tool with no annotations should say more about prerequisites and the effect of committing changes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names all three settable fields (name, location, contact) plus explains dry_run's semantics and default. That covers the full parameter set, though it adds no format or validation detail.

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 ('Set') and resource ('system name/location/contact'), making it easy to pair with the sibling get_system_info. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from read-side siblings, but purpose 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?

The note that dry_run=true is the default and previews gives implied guidance on safe invocation, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites apply.

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