params_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say whether changes persist, whether they apply immediately, or what happens to unlisted parameters. It does not contradict the annotations, but it carries little extra weight.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the value format is stated compactly. It is efficient, though terseness here is close to under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

A mutation tool with a nested free-form object parameter, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs more from the description than 'changes parameters'. Valid parameter names, the meaning of 'unit', and any confirmation/return behavior are all missing.

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 0% and the single parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema documents nothing. The description compensates partially by specifying the shape of each entry ('{value, unit}'), which is genuinely useful, but it never names valid parameter keys or units, leaving the core question of what can be set unanswered.

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 gives a verb+resource ('Меняет параметры' / changes parameters) but no scope, no indication of which parameters, and no differentiation from the sibling params_get beyond the implicit set-vs-get verb. An agent can guess it is the write counterpart to params_get, but the description itself does not make that explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative params_get. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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