mne_apply_ica

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait ('in place') and the default exclude-list behavior. However, it does not mention required preconditions (e.g., fitted ICA object) or what happens to the input instrument, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concise parameter explanation. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 a mutation with no annotations and minimal schema info. The description explains the exclude parameter but leaves out essential context about how to specify the ICA and instrument objects, and doesn't clarify the expected pipeline state (e.g., ICA must be fitted). Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'exclude' parameter well, but completely omits 'ica_name' and 'inst_name', leaving two of three parameters undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Remove') and resource ('ICA components from an instrument'), and 'in place' signals mutation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mne_fit_ica (fitting) and mne_plot_ica_sources (plotting).

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 implies usage after ICA fitting by focusing on component removal, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The exclude parameter guidance is useful but does not substitute for direct usage context.

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