Set Entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers the 50-entry limit, the need for prior module creation, the default moduleName propagation, and the recommended validation step. It also outlines the re-import strategy, which clarifies the tool's role in a multi-step workflow.

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 not overly long. Every sentence provides unique guidance or constraint. It is front-loaded with the most critical requirement (modules must exist first). Minor redundancy: 'set-entries in 50-entry chunks' is repeated, but acceptable for emphasis.

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?

With 3 parameters, no enums, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context. It explains prerequisites, constraints, post-actions (validate), and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps identified.

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%, but the description adds significant value: explains that top-level moduleName serves as default for refs.moduleName, that entries must have kind/title/summary required fields, and that max 50 entries per call. It also clarifies the relationship between moduleName and refs.moduleName, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: creating/upserting entries with vertical structure by associating them with modules via refs.moduleName. It distinguishes itself from siblings like replace-entries by explicitly mentioning when to prefer set-entries over replace-entries, and from set-entry by implying batch operation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: create modules first, set refs.moduleName to existing modules, run validate after edits. Gives clear alternative strategies: for full re-import, use delete-entries then set-entries in chunks; or replace-entries with deleteOrphans=false until final batch. Also advises splitting large catalogs into 50-entry chunks to avoid oversized payloads.

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