set_group_special_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without any details on side effects (e.g., whether it overrides existing titles), permissions required, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action and resource. Could be slightly more descriptive, but it's 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 the tool mutates stateate (sets a title), has 4 parameters but no output schemacripts, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about expected outcomes, necessary permissions (e.g., group admin), and how it relates to similar tools. An agent might need to open the schema for parameter details, but the behavior is opaque.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. The description's purpose is not to explain parameters, so this is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'group special title', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like set_group_card (group card) and set_group_name, but doesn't explicitly name them. The title is redundant but the description is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, given the sibling list, an agent can infer that this is for setting a special title for a specific user in a group, distinct from similar group operations. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough.

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