instrvar_set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Set' conveys mutation, and the description names the target field, but it does not reveal whether the operation overwrites, creates missing fields, requires an existing instrument, or has side effects on other option fields. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 very short and free of fluff, with the action placed first. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, and the single sentence does not carry enough information to be genuinely useful.

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 three mandatory parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what input_output_path refers to, what values are acceptable, or what the operation does beyond 'set', making correct invocation unlikely.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three required parameters. 'field_name' and 'value' are vaguely inferable from the description, but 'input_output_path' is completely unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the unhelpful 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 clear action ('Set') and a resource ('instrument option field value'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what an instrument option field is or how it differs from instrument variables, and the many sibling setters (ivar_set, dvar_set, input_set_field, output_set_field) make the scope ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use instrvar_set versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when this tool is preferred over sibling tools like instrvar_get, ivar_set, or input_set_field. The description simply states the action with no context.

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