set_page_arch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the caller is responsible for valid XML but omits details on mutation, idempotency, permissions, error conditions, or return value. The warning is insufficient for a write operation.

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 with two sentences and a tip, front-loading the usage hint. Every sentence adds value, though the emoji is unnecessary. It is efficient for a simple tool.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, error cases, or whether the write is immediate or queued. A more comprehensive description is needed for a mutating 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It links view_id to get_page_arch and arch to XML, but does not explain constraints, formats, or required relationships. This provides minimal value 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 it writes arch_db XML to an ir.ui.view, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling get_page_arch (read) and set_page_visibility (different action) by advising to use view_id from get_page_arch.

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 includes a tip to check for canonical recipes before multi-step work, implying this tool is for writing XML pages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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