Set instructions

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

The description discloses that this is a full replacement, not an append or merge, and scopes the effect to future questions. Annotations already signal a non-read operation, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 short sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 one-parameter setter with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the replacement semantics, the future-facing scope, and the required input. No output schema is needed for this kind of write operation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is described as 'Full replacement operator instruction text.' The description's 'Replaces full instruction text' largely restates the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific action — replacing the full instruction text that controls future answers — and clearly distinguishes it from reading instructions (get_instructions) or asking a question (ask_question). It goes beyond the name by explaining the operator's intent it serves.

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 'Use when the operator wants to command how future questions are answered' gives a clear, direct trigger for invoking this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context and siblings make the intended use obvious.

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