niagara_set_fixed_bounds

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only promises not to change unrelated settings and gives an example; it does not mention save behavior, asset persistence, validation, side effects, or what happens to existing bounds.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, a KB pointer, and a callable example. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 tool is fairly simple and the schema carries useful defaults, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps around save semantics and bounds-field behavior. The KB link and example help, making this minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the parameters. It only demonstrates system_path in an example and adds no meaning for save, fixed_bounds_min, or fixed_bounds_max beyond their schema titles and defaults.

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 states a precise action—'Set Niagara System fixed bounds'—on a specific resource, and adds a scoping guarantee: 'without changing unrelated system settings.' This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like niagara_apply_system_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 phrase 'without changing unrelated system settings' implies this is the focused tool for fixed-bounds edits, and the KB link provides context, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus siblings like niagara_apply_system_settings or niagara_describe_system. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance are given.

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