parity_set

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing mutation, overwrite semantics, idempotency, and side effects. It only says 'Record...' and does not state whether this updates existing values, whether the feature id must already exist, or whether history is written. This is too thin for a write tool.

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, with the action front-loaded and the reasoning attached succinctly attached. The second sentence earns its place by motivating why every dimension should be tracked rather than just code.

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 mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. id is undefined, state semantics are absent, and the relationship to feature_* and parity_* siblings is only implicit. An agent could guess the intent but cannot confidently invoke it correctly for all enum values and edge cases.

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%, so the description needs to explain id, state, dimension, and actor, but it does not. It lists some dimension values but omits 'screens' and 'features' from the enum and never explains the meaning of state values like 'missing', 'partial', or 'satisfied'. It adds domain context but not the parameter-level semantics an agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and a clear resource: a feature's coverage in a single dimension, with examples. 'One dimension' helps set it apart from the query-oriented parity_gaps and parity_scan siblings. Minor omission of 'screens' and 'features' from the dimension list does not obscure the core purpose.

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 second sentence gives real usage guidance: record every dimension because work is only done when all dimensions are done, and warn against tracking only code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context for when to record each dimension is clear.

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