document_series_set_default

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (only one default per type, and setting a new one presumably un-sets the previous default), but it doesn't mention whether this is a mutation requiring specific permissions, what happens to any previously-default series, or whether the operation is reversible. The side-effect of implicitly replacing the prior default is implied but not stated explicitly.

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 sentences, each adding value: the action, the consequence of auto-selection, and the exclusivity constraint. No wasted words, though slightly more detail on the default-replacement behavior could have fit without bloat.

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 simple state-setting tool with 2 params, full schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It conveys the action, the domain consequence, and the key invariant. It could mention the side effect on the previously-default series, but overall it's adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (uuid and companyId). The description itself mentions 'its type' but doesn't add detail about how the type is derived from the uuid, nor does it elaborate on the companyId override behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation.

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 action ('Set a document series as the default'), the resource ('document series'), and adds meaningful behavioral context: the default is auto-selected when creating new documents of that type, and only one series can be default per type. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like document_series_create, update, and delete.

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 explains the context of use ('auto-selected when creating new documents') and the constraint ('only one series can be default per type'), which implicitly tells the agent this tool is used to designate which series applies by default. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain context (siblings include series CRUD) makes the usage clear enough.

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