lattice.point_set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the mutation (setting a coordinate) but omits critical details such as error behavior for invalid indices, whether changes affect the base lattice or a separate deformed state, recalculations triggered, or required permissions.

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, concise sentence of 6 words with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core function without redundancy.

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 the tool modifies a lattice point and has no output schema, the description lacks necessary context: prerequisites (lattice must exist), error handling, return behavior (success/failure), and relation to other lattice operations. It is insufficient for safe autonomous invocation.

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% (only titles exist), and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. For example, it does not explain what 'index' means (e.g., 0-based, range), how 'object' identifies the lattice (name, ID), or the coordinate system of 'co_deform'.

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' clearly identifies the verb (Set) and the resource (a single lattice point's deformed coordinate). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like lattice.set, which likely handles overall lattice settings, and lattice.report, which reads data.

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 the tool is used when the goal is to modify a specific lattice point's deformation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., lattice.set for general lattice properties). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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