set_bear_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('Set the Bear app token') and provides token acquisition instructions, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a one-time setup, if it persists across sessions, what happens on invalid tokens, or any rate limits. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides actionable instructions. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a simple configuration tool with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and token acquisition, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like persistence, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a setup tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on usage context.

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 parameter 'token' documented as 'Your Bear app token.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the token's purpose ('for accessing existing notes') and providing acquisition instructions, but it doesn't add syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description offers slight contextual enhancement.

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 with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Bear app token'), and it explains the token is for 'accessing existing notes.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'check_bear_setup' or explain why setting a token is separate from other operations.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it's for 'accessing existing notes' and providing instructions on how to obtain the token, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before calling other tools like 'get_note' or 'search_notes') or mention any prerequisites. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit context about timing or exclusions.

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