Mne Set Reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and reference options; it does not disclose whether the raw object is mutated in place, whether the operation is reversible, or whether any session state is required. This is a notable transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 with the core verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the only necessary details: valid values and an example. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core invocation details are mostly covered, and return values need not be explained. However, missing side effects and usage context leave an agent to guess about state changes and preprocessing order, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 `ref_channels` parameter is well documented with valid options ('average', 'REST', comma-separated channel names) and an example. However, the `name` parameter is left entirely to inference, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the schema.

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 and object ('Set the EEG reference') and then enumerates the accepted reference modes with a concrete example. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like mne_set_montage, which concern electrode geometry rather than reference selection.

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 explains what values can be supplied but gives no guidance on when this tool should be called (e.g., after loading raw data, before epoching) or when a sibling tool would be preferable. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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