Set a profile PIN

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

Annotations already signal destructive intent, but the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: the operation is irreversible, the PIN hash is never returned, and a two-phase confirmation token flow is required. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose faction. However, 'Not reversible' and 'cannot be undone' are redundant, and the two-phase flow could be tightened. Still, all sentences add useful information overall.

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 description covers the two-phase workflow and irreversibility, which are the most critical aspects for a destructive tool. However, with no output schema and low parameter coverage, an agent will have to infer what the first call returns besides a token, and the meaning of current_pin and confirm is insufficiently specified.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirmation_token and the two-phase prepare/execute flow, but it does not clarify the semantics of current_pin (e.g., required when changing an existing PIN) or profile_index beyond what the schema implies. Partial compensation for an under-documented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set or change the PIN lock on a profile.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling nuvio_clear_profile_pin, since the purpose is setting/changing rather than locking/clearing.

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 makes it clear this is the tool to use for setting or changing a profile PIN, and it explains the two-phase invocation pattern. It does not explicitly contrast with nuvio_clear_profile_pin or document when not to use it, but the primary use context is clear.

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