setRecord

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit for specifying exactly what is destroyed — any existing field not present in data. That is real context beyond the flag. It stops short of covering auth requirements, whether the set is transactional (transactionId exists in schema), or failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded before the alternative-tool guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive mutation with annotations and a defined output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior and the sibling routing decision. It does not touch the atomicity implied by the optional transactionId parameter, a minor remaining gap.

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%, so the schema documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: that the data object is a full replacement rather than a merge target, which is the key semantic for the primary parameter.

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 and resource (replace ALL fields of a record) and immediately scopes the behavior with the consequence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling updateRecord, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (updateRecord) and the exact condition that selects it: partial/merge updates that preserve unspecified fields. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule with no inference required.

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