set_debug_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation replaces the current set, explains the empty-array behavior to disable all, and lists valid domains. It does not cover error handling or return values, but for this simple tool the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by essential details on replacement and valid domains. No filler or redundant information.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter. The description covers the action, the replacement behavior, the empty-array edge case, and the valid domain enumeration, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has a single parameter with a brief description, but the tool description adds a comprehensive list of valid domain names, which the schema lacks. This significantly enhances parameter understanding and correct 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 'Enable a specific set of debug chips on the running play session' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_debug_logs by focusing on domain configuration and mentions the replacement behavior.

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 provides clear context for use: configuring debug domains on a live session. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the replacement semantics and valid domain list imply the intended context.

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