set_run_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Edit' implies mutation but nothing is said about persistence (is the config file rewritten?), required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to unspecified settings. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the affected settings front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though it comes at the cost of completeness rather than being optimally balanced.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the meaning of the two required parameters, prerequisites, and any indication of the effect of the edit.

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 0% with five parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps runs→SIM_NUM, steps→MAX_STEP and seed→SEED, but leaves the required 'model' and 'config' parameters entirely unexplained, so half the interface remains opaque.

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?

Specific verb (Edit) plus resource (run settings of a configuration), and it names the exact settings touched (runs, seed, steps). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like set_values or set_saved, which also mutate configuration data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus set_values, set_saved, or run_configuration, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the model must be compiled or the config must exist) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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