mne_set_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains accepted reference formats but does not mention that setting a reference modifies the raw data in place, any prerequisites, or side effects. This is a significant gap 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?

Two sentences: first states the action, second provides concrete value options with an example. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, without annotations, the description does not state that this mutates the raw object, and it omits the name parameter entirely. The combination of schema plus description is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a new agent.

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 description provides meaningful guidance for the ref_channels parameter (average, REST, or channel list), which the schema simply types as string. However, the name parameter is completely unmentioned, and with 0% schema coverage the description should compensate for both parameters.

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 verb+resource ('Set the EEG reference') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by listing acceptable references. No sibling tool targets reference setting, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: whenever the user needs to set the EEG reference. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific action and reference options make the use case evident.

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