set_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'securely store' which implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires admin privileges on Windows, whether credentials are encrypted, what happens if credentials already exist, or if there are rate limits. The description is too sparse for a security-sensitive tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex behavioral nuances needing explanation.

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?

For a security-sensitive credential storage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after storage (success/failure indicators), whether the tool validates credentials, or how stored credentials relate to other tools like 'check_auth_status'. The description should provide more context about this critical security operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between api_key and auth_token, when each is required, or format requirements. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('securely store'), the resource ('API credentials for Resy or OpenTable'), and the location ('Windows Credential Manager'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'set_login' by specifying it's for API credentials rather than general login credentials.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_login' or 'refresh_token'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions for when not to use this tool.

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