set_component_filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Set') but doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing filters. It also lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects, which are critical for a tool that modifies state.

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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core action in a single sentence without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including key details like parameter explanations or usage context, which would improve its utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 1 parameter (a nested array of objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer or guess during tool invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'filters' but doesn't describe their structure, types, or usage (e.g., what 'type', 'value', 'isEnabled', 'isRegex' mean). This leaves key semantics undocumented, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare 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 the verb ('Set') and resource ('component filters'), and specifies the action's effect ('hide certain components'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_filters' or 'clear_highlight', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to set filters versus getting them or clearing highlights. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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