document_series_set_default

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real semantic context beyond them: the default is used at document-creation time and only one default exists per type, implying a prior default is displaced. It doesn't state outright that the previous default is unset or what the response returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each carrying a distinct fact (what it does, when it takes effect, the one-per-type constraint). No filler.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only minor gap is whether setting a new default clears the old one and what the call returns.

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?

Both parameters (uuid, companyId) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds no meaning about the uuid or the companyId override, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a document series as the default') plus the scope ('for its type'), which is distinguishable from document_series_update and document_series_list. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explains the operational consequence — the default series is auto-selected when creating new documents of that type — which tells the agent when this matters. It offers no explicit exclusions or pointer to an alternative (e.g., use document_series_update to change other fields), leaving that to inference.

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