aedt_change_design_settings

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies a write operation ('apply... settings') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether settings are replaced or merged, or the need to re-run analysis. Minimal transparency 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?

One sentence, but too minimal to be useful. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; this one just restates the tool name.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'active design settings' are, what the output contains, and how the tool should be used in a workflow.

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?

Only parameter 'settings' is a free-form object with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain its structure, expected keys, or example values. Output schema exists but does not help with input semantics.

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 states 'Apply active design settings', which is a verb-resource pair but vague. It restates the tool's name without specifying what design settings are. Does not distinguish from sibling tools like aedt_change_validation_settings or aedt_update_setup.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. With siblings like aedt_update_setup and aedt_create_setup, this is insufficient.

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