setMyDescription

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutating operation ('Change') and provides the success return value ('Returns True on success'). It does not mention edge behaviors like clearing the description via an empty string, but the schema already documents that parameter-level behavior.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose, then adds the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and only two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what is being changed, where the value is shown, and what the caller can expect on success. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use localized vs default descriptions, but the schema already covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond a generic reference to 'description', so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and names the exact resource ('the bot's description'). It also clarifies where this description appears ('shown in empty chats and shared via bot links'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like setMyName and setMyShortDescription.

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 implies its use case by explaining where the description is displayed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like setMyShortDescription or when a dedicated language description is appropriate. The context is inferable from sibling names and schema, but not spelled out.

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