cmw_define_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the intent to define a limit, but does not mention whether defining overwrites existing limits, whether ranges are validated, or any side effects. This is minimal for a mutation-like operation.

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 that clearly conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is on the minimal side and could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 has five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is quite incomplete. It does not explain how limits are used, how they relate to the sibling check/list/clear operations, or what happens after defining a limit. The limited context leaves the agent under-informed for proper tool selection and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description states a specific action ('Define') and resource ('pass/fail limit') with a clear purpose ('for measurement checking'). It distinguishes from sibling limit tools like cmw_check_limits, cmw_clear_limits, and cmw_list_limits because 'define' is unique. However, it could be more specific about creating named limits with min/max values.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmw_check_limits or cmw_clear_limits. It implies a use case for measurement checking but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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