set_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that KeePassXC may prompt the user to confirm the write, which tells an agent this call can block on human interaction. It says nothing about how an update treats unspecified fields (group, submit_url), whether the record is overwritten, or required permissions.

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 tight sentences with the operation semantics front-loaded and the prompting caveat deferred appropriately. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves gaps that better structure could have filled without bloat.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the prose only covers uuid and one behavioral caveat. The agent is left guessing what group, group_uuid, and submit_url do and what happens to existing fields on update, which is inadequate at this complexity.

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 0% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate; it only explains uuid's role as the update trigger. group, group_uuid, submit_url, url, login, and password are left undocumented in both the schema and the prose.

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 ('Save a new login') and clarifies that passing uuid switches the operation to an update. That create-vs-update distinction is clearer than most sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_logins or other siblings beyond the password hint.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule to a sibling: generate the password with generate_password rather than inventing one, and conditions update behavior on uuid. It stops short of when-not guidance (e.g., check get_logins first to avoid duplicates), so it lands just below the top.

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