Set entities

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

Beyond the minimal read/write hints, it discloses concrete consequences: omitted colors are auto-assigned from a clean palette, missing symbol_svg makes all entities fall back to the same ◆ and thus indistinguishable, and sections must come verbatim from user materials. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose + shape, color/symbol behavior, section provenance. Every clause carries a decision-relevant constraint and there is no filler or repetition.

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 state-setting tool with no output schema and sparse params, it covers the main usage pitfalls: cardinality limit, unique SVG requirement, and verbatim sections. It relies on external guide sections (§C1, §0) for wrapper and sourcing details, which is a minor completeness gap, but the core call contract is well specified.

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 0% schema description coverage and an additionalProperties entity object, the description is the only documentation of entity structure. It enumerates id, name, optional role/color/symbol_svg, and nested sections with {h,t}, and adds cardinality and value-sourcing rules. It does not explain timeline_id or h/t meaning, but the schema titles cover timeline_id and the guide references cover the rest.

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 opening verb 'Define' with the resource 'entity axis (the chips)' is specific, and the inline entity shape makes it unmistakably a setter for the chip/entity list rather than for axis values, nodes, or connections. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_axis_values and add_nodes without requiring the reader to open the schema.

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 strong operational guidance once selected (≤12 entities, unique symbol per entity, verbatim sections), but it never states when to prefer this over set_axis_values or other sibling tools, nor any exclusion condition. Usage context is implied by the tool name and entity-axis wording, not made explicit.

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