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

It clearly discloses that the operation replaces the whole dimension configuration rather than merging, that passing an empty dimensions array clears it, and that overallAnalysis is left untouched. The annotations already signal a mutating operation but not the exact scope of mutation, so this adds important behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the key semantic fact, and each sentence adds a distinct useful fact: replacement scope, scene-specific parameter requirements, clear behavior, prerequisite, and unsupported form type. There is no 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 tool with multiple scene-specific rules and a clear operation, the description covers the critical edge cases: whole replacement, empty-array clearing, fieldCodes vs formula, get_form prerequisite, and the unsupported form type. Since an output schema exists, not documenting the return shape is fine.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents most parameter constraints and examples. The description still adds useful meaning beyond the schema by instructing the agent to call get_form first to obtain valid fieldCodes and by flagging random_knowledge_quiz as unsupported, which affect how formId, fieldCodes, and formula should be populated.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Set' and the exact resource 'multi-dimension analysis (form.report.dimensionAnalysis)', and clarifies that it replaces the whole setting without touching overallAnalysis. It also names the unsupported form type, making the tool much easier to distinguish from update_form or update_form_settings.

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 when-to-use guidance per scene: knowledge_quiz requires fieldCodes and scored_quiz requires a formula. It also gives a concrete prerequisite ('Call get_form first') and an explicit exclusion for random_knowledge_quiz forms. It does not name an alternative tool for those excluded cases, which keeps this just below a 5.

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