set_system_prompt

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of not incrementing the iteration counter. However, it does not mention other side effects like whether the change triggers any cascading state updates or requires specific permissions.

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 at four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It wastes no words, but could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools like apply_suggestion, the description adequately covers the core behavior and use case. It lacks details on return value or error conditions, but these are partially mitigated by the tool's straightforward nature.

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 50% (only systemPrompt has a description). The tool description does not add meaning for workspaceId, leaving it unexplained. The phrase 'for this workspace' provides implicit context, but insufficient compensation for the missing schema description.

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 'Set or update the system prompt for this workspace', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does not increment the iteration counter, unlike apply_suggestion.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use this for initial setup or manual overrides' and directs to apply_suggestion for optimization steps. It also advises to load the current prompt or ask the user before overwriting.

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