replace_sticker_in_set

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate this is a write operation and idempotent), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects like whether the old sticker is permanently removed, whether position is retained, or if the sticker set must be owned by the bot. The description essentially restates the tool's name.

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 10-word sentence, front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundancy or filler, making it arguably the most concise way to state the 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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema, so the description should cover its full contract. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., set ownership), permissions, return value, or behavioral details like what happens to the old sticker. The description leaves critical context missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely maps 'existing sticker' to old_sticker and 'new one' to sticker. It does not clarify what 'name' refers to (likely the sticker set name), the expected format of sticker or old_sticker (file_id, sticker object), or the role of user_id. This leaves parameter meanings highly ambiguous.

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 function with a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('an existing sticker in a set'), and it distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like add_sticker_to_set or delete_sticker_from_set. The phrasing is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 when to use the tool (when a sticker needs to be swapped) but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or which alternative to prefer. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to related sticker-set operations, so the guidance is only implicit.

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