set_compiler

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

The description discloses the conditional behavior of Typleaf's CLSI (only builds a Typst sync map when compiler is 'typst' AND root ends in .typ), which annotates the consequences of a wrong setting. It also calls out the session requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true) without contradicting them.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the critical condition, the failure modes, and the requirement. While slightly long, the content is high-value and not padded, so it reads as efficient rather than verbose.

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 two-parameter setter with an enum and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the behavior, the failure consequences, and the session requirement. The only minor gap is not warning explicitly about the destructiveHint=true annotation, which could merit a caution, but the context provided is otherwise sufficient.

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 100%, with the project_id parameter already extensively documented (format, source, and the remote-vs-local clarification). The description adds semantic value to the compiler parameter by explaining the special role of the 'typst' value, but mostly relies on the schema baseline, which is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Set the project's compiler') and immediately clarifies the most common value ('most often to ‘typst'') and what that accomplishes. It clearly distinguishes itself from build/compile tools by explaining the setting's role in making a project a Typst project.

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 gives a clear use context: set the compiler to 'typst' when the project should be a Typst project, and warns of the failure modes (TeX errors that never mention Typst, PDF-position tools silently returning nothing) when left on pdflatex. It mentions the TYPLEAF_SESSION requirement but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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