set_privacy

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds the list of allowed values for the value parameter, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid inputs. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 succinct, with a one-line purpose followed by an args list. It avoids redundant language, though the Args block is a bit terse and could be better integrated with the schema. Still, every sentence earns its place and the front-loading is effective.

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 setter with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the meaning of 'key', which is mitigated by referencing get_privacy. The value options are fully enumerated, and the output schema covers return values, so overall completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 full burden. It enumerates valid values for 'value' and directs users to get_privacy for 'key', which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of the keys themselves, only pointing to another tool, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Set privacy for the specified key' (Установить privacy для указанного ключа). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_privacy (the getter). The purpose is immediately comprehensible.

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 hints at usage by referencing get_privacy for key definitions, implying users should consult the getter first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond that pointer.

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