content

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the page HTML is replaced 'wholesale', which implies a destructive, full-page overwrite, but it does not mention side effects such as clearing JavaScript state, form data, or event listeners. It also omits any mention of potential error conditions or the effect on the current session. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler and is immediately informative. This is an optimal length for a simple tool, earning a top score for conciseness and structure.

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 has three parameters (one required) and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining usage context. Instead, it provides only a one-line summary. It does not mention the significance of the 'session' parameter for multi-step work on shared daemons, nor does it clarify that the change is immediate and irreversible. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full context, especially regarding parameter interplay and side effects.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters; it does not clarify how 'html' interacts with 'lease' or 'session', nor does it emphasize the importance of unique session names on shared daemons (which the schema already notes). It adds no value beyond the schema, so a score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Replace the page HTML wholesale') and the resource (page HTML), and even names the underlying method (page.set_content). This makes it distinct from retrieval tools like 'html' or 'extract' in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from partial-update tools like 'fill' or 'type', relying on the word 'wholesale' to imply that. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for full replacements only, or when to prefer partial updates via 'fill' or 'type'. There is no mention of prerequisites, session handling, or contexts where it should be avoided. The agent is left to infer usage from the verb alone.

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