set_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that the write goes to the raw layer, that repack performs the build, and that overwrite=false preserves existing help. It does not mention permissions or return values, but the main side effects and the overwrite semantics are 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 compact and front-loaded with the operative behavior. Every clause adds information: what is written, where it is written, who builds, and how the two key parameters behave. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the main behavior, the repack relationship, and the two non-obvious parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit definitions for dir_path and help_html, but both are inferable from context.

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 no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains object_path (empty vs 'Type/Name') and overwrite (false means don't overwrite). However, the required dir_path is only implied by 'каталог unpack' and help_html is not directly described, leaving partial coverage.

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 verb ('Записать' = write), the resource ('справочную информацию (help) объекта'), and the target ('raw-слой каталога unpack'). It also distinguishes itself from repack by noting that repack performs the build.

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 gives concrete usage context: object_path is empty for external processing/reports and 'Type/Name' for configuration/extension, and it notes that repack does the build. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the context is enough to guide invocation.

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