Overwrite a quantity in a standalone run (DVA)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the target is a running standalone run and that the change is an overwrite; it does not disclose that the effect is time-bound (per duration_ms) or what happens when the run ends. With annotations carrying the safety bar, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, stating the action and the target domain immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents the 4 parameters. However, for a state-mutating tool the description omits the relationship to cm_dva_write/cm_dva_release and the time-bounded nature of the override, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among the DVA siblings.

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 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, including the duration_ms semantics ('-1: until the run ends'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond restating the overwrite action.

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?

States a specific verb ('Overwrite') and resource ('a quantity in a running standalone simulation'), and expanding DVA signals the domain. It distinguishes itself from the plain cm_dva_write sibling only implicitly via 'standalone' in the title/name; the description never names the non-standalone alternative, so an agent must infer the split.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The counterpart cm_dva_release (which presumably removes the override) is never referenced, and the temporary nature of the write is not framed as usage guidance. The only context ('running simulation') is implied rather than stated as a precondition.

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