set_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions setting priority but does not explain effects like what happens when both link_ids and package_ids are provided, whether priority is overwritten or appended, or any side effects. It also does not describe return values or error conditions.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the key scoping information (stage). Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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?

Despite the tool having 4 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description only covers the basic purpose and stage values. It lacks detail on parameter interactions, priority value enumeration, prerequisites, and behavioral outcomes. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameter combinations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides useful context for the `stage` parameter (allowed values: linkgrabber|downloads) and mentions priority range (HIGHEST..LOWEST), but it does not explain the relationship between `link_ids` and `package_ids` (e.g., are they alternatives or combinable), nor the exact set of valid priority values. The term 'items' is vague and does not clearly map to the schema's parameters.

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 priority'), the resource ('items'), and the scope ('in the given stage (linkgrabber | downloads)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_enabled or set_extraction, which target different attributes.

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 implies the tool is used to set priority on items in either the linkgrabber or downloads stage, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implied.

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