emotion_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical partial-update behavior ('unspecified fields remain unchanged') and that it is a set operation, which is sufficient for this simple setter. It could mention persistence or side effects, but these are not essential here.

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 action and immediately adds the key preservation behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant content.

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?

Given the simple setter nature and 6 parameters, the schema thoroughly documents ranges, and the description covers partial updates. No output schema is present, so return values are not needed. The description is complete for typical usage without being verbose.

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 descriptions cover ranges for 5 of 6 parameters (83%), and the description adds crucial semantics: omitting an optional field preserves its value. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions and is essential for correct invocation.

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 ('manually set') and the resource ('user emotion values'), and the note about unspecified fields remaining unchanged distinguishes it from other modifying tools like emotion_apply_deltas or emotion_reset. It is specific and 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 phrase 'manually set' implies direct assignment versus incremental changes from emotion_apply_deltas, but there is no explicit when-to-use or mention of alternatives. It provides enough context for basic use but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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