lattice-set

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey side effects. It only says 'Set', implying a mutation, but does not mention potential consequences, required permissions, or what happens to existing data. The description is too sparse for safe use.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits essential details. It could be slightly longer without losing conciseness to clarify RNA properties and usage.

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 no annotations, output schema, or additional context, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the operation returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects on the lattice object.

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 schema provides minimal descriptions for each parameter (value, object, property), but the tool description adds no additional clarification. It does not explain the format of 'value' or what kinds of 'property' strings are valid, leaving ambiguity.

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 that it sets an RNA property on lattice data, but 'RNA property' is not explained, and it's unclear how this differs from sibling tools like lattice-point_set. It identifies the action (set) and target (lattice data) but lacks specificity.

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 such as lattice-point_set or lattice-report. There is no context for choosing this operation over similar ones.

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