mpar_set_bounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the MPar-only limitation and that it operates in batch mode, but does not disclose details like whether unspecified bounds are left unchanged, whether invalid paths fail silently, or whether this overwrites existing bounds. No annotation contradiction.

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, no fluff, and the MPar-specific limitation is stated prominently at the end. Every sentence adds signal.

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 batch setter with no output schema, the description covers the main eligibility constraint (MPar only) and the batch nature. It could be more complete by noting whether this replaces all bounds on the parameter or merges with existing values, but the schema and tool name cover most of the remaining context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the bound fields (Min, Max, Opt Min, Opt Max) which maps to the input schema, and points to MPar parameters. However, it does not explain that 'path' is required per item or that each item can contain a subset of bounds; the schema's example path helps but the description adds the key MPar-specific context.

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 uses specific verb 'Batch-set' with resource 'MPar parameters' and clarifies scope ('Min, Max, Opt Min, Opt Max'), clearly distinguishing it from single-parameter setters like mpar_set.

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 states it 'Only works for MPar, not DPar', providing an explicit exclusion that guides the agent away from DPar parameters. It does not name alternatives like mpar_set or dpar_set explicitly, but the MPar/DPar distinction is sufficient context.

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