set_favorite_script

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is already covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that omitting the optional parameter clears the favorite rather than leaving it untouched, and that the result surfaces as a star on the script's tab — context beyond the annotations.

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 its visible effect, followed by the clearing rule. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the target, and the clearing behavior. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether the favorite is per-session or per-project, but nothing essential to a correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the consequence of omitting draft ('to clear it'), which the schema's draft description ('main' or a variant id.) never states, and by pairing that with the optional/required distinction.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Mark one script as the favorite (star on its tab)', which is unambiguous and describes the visible effect. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar-sounding siblings such as set_keeper, set_best_cut, or promote_variant, so the agent has no explicit routing cue.

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 an operational rule ('Omit draft to clear it'), which is genuine usage guidance for the clearing case. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like set_keeper or promote_variant, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., must the session already have a script).

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