Set your business details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this tool writes to a shared profile and that the stored details appear on every relevant document, but it does not mention that the profile is overwritten, whether auth is required, or that the effect is global and irreversible. Partial transparency, but not a contradiction.

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 only two sentences with no filler words. The second sentence connects this tool to the invoice server's business_set, a valuable structural note, and the whole text fits in a small space while conveying the key purpose.

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?

Given 17 parameters and no output schema, the description gives an appropriate high-level summary, and the schema carries the per-parameter detail. However, it does not state what happens to existing documents or existing profile values, nor does it clarify whether the write is a full overwrite or partial update. For a global settings setter, these caveats matter to agents.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a rich description (e.g., the email rule). The tool description only adds a high-level category summary (currency, VAT, terms, prefix) and does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool stores sender details and defaults that appear on proposals, contracts, and letters, and it references the shared profile relationship with the invoice business_set. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to prefer this tool over a sibling like invoice_business_set, so it falls short of a fully differentiated purpose statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies the tool is for docx-generated documents but does not contrast with invoice_business_set or offer alternatives, leaving an agent without enough context to avoid the wrong sibling.

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