set_place_comment

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavioral traits beyond annotations: the comment is 'unvalidated by the coordinator' and the tool 'refuses if the place is acquired by a DIFFERENT identity unless force=True.' These details explain failure modes and the force parameter's purpose, adding meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. The annotation and description are consistent (no contradiction).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a single, relevant caveat. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema/annotation information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with an output schema and annotations already covering destructive behavior, the description covers the essential context: what, when, and a key conditional failure. It does not mention that the comment is overwritten (implied by 'set') or other edge cases, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description gives semantic meaning to all three parameters: 'place' is the existing place, 'comment' is the free-form comment, and 'force=True' is explicitly referenced as the override for different-identity refusals. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for the force parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set an existing place's free-form comment.' This is a specific verb+resource, and the mention of 'unvalidated by the coordinator' adds nuance that distinguishes it from other place-modification tools like set_place_tags. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 clear context for when the tool is used (setting a comment on a place) and includes an important caveat that it refuses when the place is acquired by a different identity unless force=True. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the refusal condition serves as a practical usage guideline by warning when force may be necessary.

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