set_favorite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses idempotency, SQLite persistence, no external auth/rate limits, and the return shape. It doesn't mention error behavior for nonexistent file_id, but for a simple setter this is reasonably rich.

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?

Four concise sentences cover purpose, idempotency, persistence, auth/rate limits, return value, and integration with other tools. No filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers behavior, return value, where it persists, and how it integrates with search/list filters. No output schema exists, but the return is explicitly stated. The tool is fully self-contained.

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 basic descriptions like 'Favorite status'. The description adds critical meaning: 'not a toggle, you pass the desired state' and clarifies idempotency, which goes beyond the schema.

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 or clear the favorite flag on one file', a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_tags/remove_tags by focusing on the favorite flag.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Use to curate quick-access pins' and mentions that list_files/search/bundle_search accept favorite:true for filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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