mne_set_montage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets channel positions and mentions the default montage behavior via config. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation overwrites existing montage positions or whether the 'raw' object is modified in place, which are relevant behavioral traits for a mutation 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes useful examples without fluff. Every sentence adds value: action, use case, and default behavior.

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 simple (2 params, no required params) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It provides the essential context (when needed, default behavior). However, the missing semantics for the 'name' parameter and lack of mention of side effects leave minor gaps.

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 the default behavior, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter (default 'raw'), leaving its meaning ambiguous (likely a reference to the data object in the session). This leaves one of two parameters semantically undocumented.

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: 'Apply a standard electrode montage' and specifies the resource ('channel positions'). It also provides concrete examples of montages and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its role in topographic plots and interpolation, which is unique among the siblings.

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 explicitly states 'Needed before topographic plots and interpolation', giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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