Set EME analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the mutation burden and does disclose that this changes a single EME window parameter, does not affect the selected object, and is not reflected in `get_info(kind="property")`. It does not discuss permissions, failure modes, or whether an EME analysis window must already be active, which are meaningful gaps for a write 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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage timing, then disambiguation and follow-up reads. It is appropriately sized and every sentence has a role, though the formatting and multiple sibling references make it slightly busier than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on preconditions, disambiguation, and read-back paths. It stops short of stating that an EME Analysis Window must exist or what happens on invalid parameter names, which would complete the picture for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including SI units and boolean format. The description adds domain value by naming the kinds of EME settings available (sweep type, wavelength range, cell group span, tolerances, energy conservation), but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: setting one parameter on the EME Analysis Window. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, `set_property`, and names the underlying operation (`setemeanalysis`), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit timing: use before `run_action(eme_sweep)` / `eme_propagate` when configuring sweep parameters. It also states what this is *not* (`set_property`) and where to read values back (`get_info(kind="eme_analysis")`), leaving little to inference.

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