set_private

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the flag suppresses the record from queries, searches, tree walks, timelines, and reports unless include_private is passed. It does not mention reversibility, which undo_transaction sibling implies is relevant.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the single most important behavioral fact. No filler and nothing requires rereading.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the operation, its dual set/clear nature, and the downstream effect of the flag, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor omissions remain: supported object types are only exemplified, and the description doesn't say whether the change is reversible or logged as a transaction.

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% and every parameter (target, private, object_type) is documented in the schema, including the default of private=true. The description's mention of 'set (or clear)' adds only marginal framing beyond the schema's 'True to mark private (default), False to un-mark', so the 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 ('Set (or clear) the Gramps private flag on an object') and immediately explains the observable consequence of the flag, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like tag_object or delete_object. The parenthetical '(or clear)' also captures the two-way nature of the operation.

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 explains what the flag does ('withheld from bulk output... unless a call passes include_private'), which implies when you'd want it, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tag_object, update_object_fields, or delete_object, nor any prerequisites.

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