set_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets the output block, that nTop reads the graph's own output key rather than root group inputs, and that passing -1 clears the output. It does not detail side effects or validation, but for a simple setter this is adequate transparency.

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 sentences pack the purpose, a critical prerequisite, the error condition, and the clear command (pass -1) with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 is complete for the tool's core function and the blockId parameter, and it explains the error when unset. However, it omits any explanation for the 'output' and 'notebook' parameters, and does not mention return values or side effects (e.g., whether the graph is modified in place). For a tool with low schema coverage, these gaps mean an agent cannot fully determine correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only blockId has a description). The tool description adds meaning for blockId via the '-1 to clear' note, but it says nothing about the 'output' or 'notebook' parameters, leaving them undocumented in both the schema and the description. An agent would not know what values to provide for these fields.

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 (choose which block), a resource (the notebook output), and clarifies the distinction from related tools like set_input or add_block. It also explains the underlying mechanism (nTop reads the graph's own output key), which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says this tool is 'Required before run_notebook's outputJson will produce anything' and describes the exact error message when unset, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not name alternatives, but the prerequisite and the -1 clear behavior provide strong usage guidance without ambiguity.

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