cst_set_pml_properties

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

No annotations provided; description only states basic functionality without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites previous PML settings, dependencies on boundary type, or side effects.

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?

Two succinct sentences with front-loaded action verb and no superfluous information, earning its place.

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 configuration tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete, though it lacks mention of return behavior or persistence.

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 coverage is 100% with clear default values and ranges; description adds minimal context ('fine-tuning accuracy') beyond schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies verb 'Configure' and resource 'PML absorbing boundary properties', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like cst_set_boundary which handle general boundaries.

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?

Description implies usage context (fine-tuning radiation boundaries) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like cst_set_boundary.

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