set_essence_msg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate that this is a mutation, its side effects, permissions required, or the return value. The single sentence offers no behavioral information.

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 extremely short, but the brevity harms usefulness rather than aiding it. It lacks a full sentence and provides no front-loaded key information, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should at least clarify what 'essence message' means and what setting it does. It fails to provide any contextual information, making the tool impossible to use correctly.

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 schema already describes message_id as 'Message ID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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?

The description 'Set essence message' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't explain what an 'essence message' is or what 'setting' it entails. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_essence_msg_list or delete_essence_msg.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without any context for invocation.

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