Set Answer

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context about incremental building, the meaning of ready flags, and that the answer can be retrieved later, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: a clear one-line purpose, followed by a concise bullet list for the ready flag and a helpful pointer to rlm_get_answer. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers incremental update semantics and retrieval, which are the key contextual facts. It does not need to explain return values or session_id since the schema covers those.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds semantics for 'ready' (partial vs final) and clarifies that 'content' can be partial or complete. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 'Set or update the answer for the current RLM task' with a specific verb and resource (answer, RLM task). It distinguishes itself from the sibling rlm_get_answer by explaining the get/set relationship and describing incremental answer building, which is unique to this tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this to build up your answer incrementally' and explains the ready=false vs ready=true distinction, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions rlm_get_answer as the retrieval counterpart, but does not explicitly contrast with rlm_set_variable or state when not to use this tool.

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