set_class_param_curve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the length constraint but does not disclose error behavior on mismatch, whether dryRun is supported, permanence, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in the essential paramId mapping and length constraint. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and critical constraint, but it omits mention of the dryRun parameter and any return value or error handling. While not overly complex, the lack of these details leaves it slightly incomplete for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description repeats the paramId mapping and values length constraint that are already present in the schema, adding no extra semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 verb ('Replace'), the resource ('one of a class's 8 parameter growth curves'), and its scope. It also provides the paramId mapping and a key constraint, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like update_class.

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 context is clear: this tool is specifically for replacing parameter growth curves, and the constraint about matching curve length gives usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use instructions, so it falls short of a 5.

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