ipa_set_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this writes persistent state ("Remember") and that it should be invoked once after asking the user. It does not say what happens on a repeat call (overwrite vs. merge) or what omitting an optional field does — all three parameters are nullable with default null, so an agent cannot tell whether null clears a stored value or leaves it untouched.

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?

Two short sentences with the identity purpose front-loaded and the conditional library caveat second; nothing is padded. The line-wrapped parenthetical is slightly awkward but costs no comprehension.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the operation is simple (three optional scalar fields). The description covers what to store and when, yet leaves the nullable-parameter semantics and repeat-call behavior undefined, which are the two things an agent is most likely to get wrong on a persistence tool.

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 does real work for `lab` by enumerating the accepted values (Aumeier, Dudin, Kaksonen, Kruse, Roux, other) that the schema lacks as an enum, and it glosses `library` as the synced library location. `name` is only implied by the tool name, and no format or path expectation is given for `library`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: persist the current user's identity (name, lab) and, if auto-detection failed, their synced library location. The parenthetical enumerates the concrete fields it handles, so an agent knows exactly what gets stored. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no sibling plausibly overlaps with a user-profile setter.

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?

"Ask the user once, then call this" gives explicit timing and a one-shot discipline, and "if auto-detection failed" gives a clear condition for supplying the library. No alternative tool is named, but there is no competing candidate among the siblings for this operation.

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