mne_interpolate_bads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method and prerequisite but omits critical behaviors such as whether the operation mutates data in-place, the effect of the 'reset_bads' parameter, and whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a data-altering tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. However, it is under-specified given the tool's parameters and dependencies, so while concise, it lacks necessary detail for effective use.

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 has moderate complexity with 2 parameters and a prerequisite (montage), but the description provides no workflow context with sibling tools (e.g., marking bad channels first), no mention of data types or return values, and the output schema is not described. The description is not complete enough for safe autonomous use.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. The agent must infer that 'name' refers to the data object and 'reset_bads' controls bad channel clearing. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Interpolate' with a clear resource 'currently-marked bad channels' and method 'spherical splines'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mne_mark_bad_channels (which marks bads) and mne_set_montage (which sets montage).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires a montage'), which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide a workflow (e.g., mark bads first, then set montage). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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