mne_mark_bad_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: appending to existing bads by default and the replace option to overwrite, plus the comma-separated input format. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the raw object is modified in place), error conditions, or the purpose of the 'name' parameter.

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 action, and every word adds value. The example format and the append/replace distinction are efficiently communicated with no 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?

For a simple utility with an output schema, the description covers the core action and the main behavioral nuance. However, it misses context around the 'name' parameter, prerequisites (e.g., loaded raw object), and return behavior, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for 'bads' (comma-separated names, example) and 'replace' (append vs. overwrite), but it does not clarify the 'name' parameter, which remains undocumented in both the schema and description. Partial compensation.

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 the tool's function: "Mark channels as bad" with an example format. This is a specific verb+resource (mark channels), and the sibling list shows this is distinct from other MNE tools like mne_interpolate_bads or mne_plot_raw.

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 provides clear operational context (append vs. replace behavior) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no direct alternative comparison.

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