office_set_comment_identity

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that the tool updates 'in-memory defaults', is non-destructive, and only affects subsequent operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (3 sentences plus structured Args/Returns), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and annotations already covering mutation behavior, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and effect. Return value is described as 'Updated identity configuration', which is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context beyond field names: examples like 'Jane Doe' for name, and clarity that identity is email or alias, initials are optional overrides. This provides practical guidance.

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 identifies the tool's action ('set default commenter identity') and its resource ('for subsequent comment operations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like office_comment by explaining that this tool configures defaults used by add-comment tools when the author argument is omitted.

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 specifies when to use: before comment operations to set author defaults. It explains that the identity is used by office_comment and format-specific add-comment tools when author is omitted. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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