mpar_set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently discloses the mutating nature of the call and that bounds can be targeted instead of the current value, but it remains silent on side effects, validation, or how existing bound values are replaced.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary operation is first and the optional bounds behavior is second. Every word adds necessary meaning.

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?

For a simple three-parameter setter with no output schema, the core call can be made correctly from this text plus schema. Still, the lack of guidance about mpar_set_bounds and the absence of behavioral/result context leave meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that value sets the current value and minvalmax selects a bound, but it leaves param_path with only the schema example and provides no detail on value constraints or path resolution.

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 ('Set a Model parameter value') and clarifies the critical distinction between setting the current value and setting bounds via minvalmax. It is clear enough to identify this as the parameter setter, though it does not explicitly reference the dedicated sibling mpar_set_bounds.

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 one direct usage directive: use minvalmax for Min/Max/Opt Min/Opt Max instead of the current value. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over mpar_set_bounds or other setters, leaving the selection among siblings partially to inference.

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