lattice-point_set

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It states the operation (set a coordinate) but does not reveal whether it mutates the lattice in place, requires a specific mode or selection, affects the deformed object, or has side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and does not waste space.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to specify the lattice object, what the deformed coordinate represents, whether the lattice must be selected, or what happens after setting. It lacks essential context that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 only paraphrases the 'co_deform' parameter ('deformed coordinate') and vaguely refers to 'one lattice point', but does not clarify what 'index' means beyond the schema title, nor what format 'object' should take. The parameter titles already provide this minimal meaning.

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 'Set one lattice point's deformed coordinate' uses a specific verb (Set) and resource (lattice point's deformed coordinate), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'lattice-set' (which likely sets lattice-wide properties) and 'lattice-report'. It precisely conveys the tool's function.

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 implies usage to modify a specific lattice point's coordinate, but provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives like lattice-set or lattice-report. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or selection requirements, so guidance is only implied.

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