set_hooks

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag destructiveHint=true) by describing exactly what is replaced and the downstream consequences: hooks appear above the teleprompter, selecting one moves it into the script's first paragraph/hook slot, and each take records its opening hook in the 'hook' field. This gives an agent real behavioral context for a destructive setter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the destructive side effect before elaboration. It is dense but each clause (replacement behavior, teleprompter display, hook slot, take recording, sibling routing) carries distinct information rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its downstream effects, and annotations already cover the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though it does not state permission/collaboration requirements for editing an active session's hooks.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the notion that hooks are 'opening lines' for a session and implies ordering ('best first' is in the schema), but contributes little parameter meaning beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Offer several hooks (opening lines) for a session') and immediately names its key side effect ('Replaces earlier hook options'). It also distinguishes itself from the variant tools ('Use this for hook options; use variants for different whole scripts'), letting an agent separate it from siblings like set_post_hooks or create_variants.

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?

Explicitly routes between this tool and 'variants' by scope ('hook options' vs 'different whole scripts'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. The alternative reference is a bit loose since the sibling list contains create_variants/update_variant rather than a bare 'variants' tool, so the routing is slightly ambiguous but still actionable.

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