親子設定

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: parent omission removes parent, cycle rejection, immediate reflection and returns 'ok'. Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds significant value.

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) with each sentence contributing unique information: purpose, omission behavior, cycle rejection, and immediate result. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers main use cases (set parent, remove parent), cycle rejection, and immediate feedback. With an output schema present (as per context), return values are covered. Missing explicit error handling beyond cycle rejection, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds marginal value by noting that omitting 'parent' removes the parent, but the schema already explains the parameters adequately, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Set the parent of an entity' (specific verb+resource), and adds unique behaviors like parent removal on omission and cycle rejection, which distinguishes it from other entity manipulation tools among siblings.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to set or remove parent) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or compare with sibling tools. Given the tool's straightforward nature, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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