Mne Set Montage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the main effect (setting channel positions) and the default montage behavior. However, it does not mention side effects on session data, channel-name compatibility, or failure modes, leaving only partial 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples, then the use-case, then the default behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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 core operation, use-case, and default are covered, and an output schema exists so return value details need not be in the description. The unexplained `name` parameter and absence of annotations prevent it from being fully self-sufficient, but it is adequate for a basic call.

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 explains the montage parameter with examples and default behavior, but the `name` parameter is not explained at all, leaving an agent without guidance on what object it refers to.

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 opens with a specific action ('Apply... montage') and states the result ('set channel positions'), backed by concrete montage examples. It also gives a use-case ('Needed before topographic plots and interpolation') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It clearly indicates when the tool is needed (before topographic plots and interpolation) and explains the behavior when montage is omitted. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives such as mne_set_reference, so it stops short of full routing.

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