Mne Interpolate Bads

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the interpolation method and montage requirement, but it does not say whether the in-memory data object is modified, whether original channel data is replaced, or how the 'bad' markers are affected afterward. The reset_bads parameter defaulting to true makes this omission significant.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds method and prerequisite details. Every word contributes information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 description identifies the operation and prerequisite but is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing about object targeting and side effects. Given that annotations are absent and schema coverage is 0%, the description should have explained the two parameters and the mutation behavior; it does neither.

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 description provides no information about either parameter. The 'name' parameter is especially opaque since its default is merely 'raw' and it is not explained as referring to an MNE object. The description also fails to clarify that 'reset_bads' controls whether the bad-channel list is cleared after interpolation.

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 specific action and resource: interpolate currently-marked bad channels. It also names the method (spherical splines) and a key precondition (montage). The phrase 'currently-marked' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like mne_mark_bad_channels.

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 this should be used after bad channels have been marked and after a montage is set, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as rejecting bad segments. It gives a clear prerequisite but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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