set_comp

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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ("Only the fields given change"), the empty-string-clear rule that explains destructiveHint, and the parsing rule that the first amount found is read to mark the highest. It does not mention permissions or how ambiguous keys resolve, but that is covered in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, but the sentences are long and colloquial ("Keep what a recruiter told the person"), and the trailing "Returns what is kept for the job" is vague and arguably wasted. The core content is right, the phrasing is not tight.

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?

For a 10-parameter destructive write with 100% schema coverage, the description covers mutation semantics, clearing behavior and amount parsing. It is thin only on the return value (no output schema exists, so a one-line summary is acceptable) and on error handling, which the key parameter's schema already describes.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by stating the amount-format expectation ("Write amounts the way they were said, '165-195K'") and the 'first amount found' interpretation rule, which the schema doesn't spell out. It also flags that role and career_note are the career-value fields.

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: it stores what a recruiter said about pay for a job, plus career role/notes for that job. It names the sibling consumer (get_comps), which makes the read/write split clear. The only weakness is the folksy phrasing ("Keep what a recruiter told the person") that a non-native agent may parse slowly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'what a recruiter told the person about pay' and by naming get_comps as the downstream reader, so the agent can infer this is the recording step. There is no explicit 'use when' trigger and no statement of when to prefer another tool (e.g. get_comps, get_job) or what to do if the job is unknown.

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