set_token

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. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't explain what this does (e.g., stores token for session, requires authentication, potential side effects like invalidating previous tokens). For a tool that likely mutates state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits critical context like behavioral effects, usage timing, or error handling, which are important for an authentication-related tool.

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, with the 'token' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, source, or validation details), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('your Lichess API token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_tokens' or 'revoke_token', but the specificity of 'Set' versus 'test' or 'revoke' provides inherent distinction.

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 'test_tokens' or 'revoke_token', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a token from Lichess) or context (e.g., authentication setup). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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