Save a path alias

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that the operation is an upsert ('creates or replaces'), that existing aliases will be overwritten, and that the target path is validated for existence before the write.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (creates/replaces, @alias, local or UNC path, existence verification) carries information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers mutation semantics, target validation, and path scope. Minor gaps remain on failure modes (e.g. what happens if verification fails) and alias collision handling.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does partially compensate: it names the alias as 'short @alias' and characterizes the path as a 'local or UNC file/folder path'. It still does not describe the alias character restrictions or error behavior for an invalid/duplicate alias, so the compensation is partial.

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 pair (creates or replaces) and a specific resource (a short @alias for a file/folder path), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It separates itself from set_printer_alias by resource type (path vs printer), though that differentiation is implicit rather than called out.

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 phrase 'after verifying that it exists' gives an implied precondition for the path argument, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not to use it, and no alternative named (e.g. set_printer_alias for printers).

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