cmw_lte_configure_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'configure', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires specific conditions, changes are immediately applied, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a configuration tool.

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 front-loads the verb and target, and lists the key parameter categories. Every word contributes to clarity, with no unnecessary filler.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected behavior, return values, prerequisites, or how it fits into the broader LTE workflow (e.g., need for cell on/off). Many sibling tools exist, and this description does not provide enough context for an agent to select and use 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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, and the description maps well to the core parameters: band, bandwidth_mhz (BW), dl_earfcn (EARFCN), and dl_level_dbm (DL level). However, host and port are left unexplained in both schema and description, and the description does not add deeper semantic detail beyond naming the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Configure') and the target resource ('LTE cell parameters'), and lists specific parameter types (band, BW, EARFCN, DL level). This distinguishes it from other LTE configuration tools like cmw_lte_configure_nas or cmw_lte_configure_bearer, which target different aspects.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for configuring LTE cell parameters, there is no explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., cell must be off), or when to prefer other configuration tools. Users are left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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