set_name

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool sets a name; it does not mention whether existing names are overwritten, what happens on invalid indexes, permission requirements, side effects, or error 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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core action, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.

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 enum-based kind parameter, an undocumented index parameter, sparse schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to guarantee a correct call. It needs more detail about index semantics, valid strip kinds, and overwrite behavior.

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 only 33%, with only the kind parameter described. The description ties 'name' to the scribble strip but does not clarify the meaning or range of index, nor the name constraints. It only partially compensates for the sparse schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the scribble strip name of a channel/bus/dca.' This makes the action unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools. It loses a point because it omits aux, main, and mtx strip kinds that the schema explicitly allows.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to change a strip's scribble strip name. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Sibling names are distinct enough that the context is inferable rather than fully stated.

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