set_build_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'overwrites existing notes', which is a critical destructive trait. The verb 'write' also signals mutation. This goes beyond a neutral 'sets notes' and gives the agent essential risk information. It does not discuss reversibility or failure modes, but for a simple setter, the overwrite disclosure is sufficient.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Write notes/documentation') and immediately adds the crucial overwrite caveat in parentheses. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or 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?

Given the low complexity (2 simple string parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, target resource, and behavioral side effect. It does not mention prerequisites like whether the build file must pre-exist, but this is not critical for basic usage. The core of writing and overwriting is fully communicated, making it contextually complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, describing both build_name and notes with clear meanings. The description adds minimal extra semantics by rephrasing 'write notes/documentation', but does not explain relationships or format details beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Write notes/documentation into a PoB build file'. It also includes the key behavior of overwriting existing notes, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_build_notes. This fully captures the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: to write or update notes in a build file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'overwrites existing notes' note implies a caution that this is for replacement rather than appending. Sibling names further clarify the write/read distinction, so it earns a 4 for clear context without explicit alternative framing.

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