bmc_set_atob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains what A-to-B mode does (counts only between markers) and that markers are set via set_breakpoint. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., does it reset the counter?), required permissions, or what happens if no markers are set. The transparency is adequate but not deep.

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 concise at four sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and uses a clean structure with separate paragraphs for description and arguments. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (a toggle with a dependency on breakpoints), the description covers the basic workflow. It mentions the prerequisite (set breakpoints) and has an output schema indicated. However, it lacks details on default state, error handling, and what 'Confirmation' looks like. Overall adequate but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining both parameters: counter (with example 'M1CNT') and enabled (True/False to enable/disable). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could specify format constraints for counter.

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 tool's function: enabling or disabling A-to-B mode on a BMC counter. It provides the specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('BMC counter'). While it distinguishes from siblings by referencing set_breakpoint, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bmc_* tools, but the purpose is still very clear.

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 mentions using set_breakpoint to set markers, which gives context on when to use this tool (after markers are set). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., counter must exist), or alternatives. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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