femm_set_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a write mutation that stores text in the model file and notes a single-line limit, but it does not state whether it overwrites an existing comment, whether it requires an open document/session, or what happens on success or failure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple setter tool, even though it omits important details that belong in other dimensions.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition is under-specified. It does not explain the session parameter, the mutation behavior, or how the comment relates to the model file lifecycle, leaving notable gaps for correct invocation.

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 should compensate for both parameters. It loosely describes the 'comment' parameter as free text and adds a single-line constraint, but it says nothing about the 'session' parameter or its default value of 'main'.

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 a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('free-text comment/description in the model file') and even names the underlying API call (xi_setcomment). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling setter tools such as femm_set_group or femm_set_block_prop.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions it should be called. It only states what it stores and the 'Single line' constraint.

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