femm_set_group

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a state dependency ('the selected objects') but says nothing about whether existing group membership is overwritten, what group 0 means, permission requirements, or error behavior on an empty selection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action comes first and the explanatory parenthetical follows. The cross-references are dense but each earns its place by clarifying the group identifier's downstream use.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and group semantics reasonably but omits session scoping and overwrite/state behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add genuine meaning for `group` by tying it to femm_block_integral(group=...) and femm_field_stats(region='group:N'), but the `session` parameter (default 'main') is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Put') and resource ('the selected objects') plus the effect (into group number `group`), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like femm_select or femm_move_selected, so it falls short of the top-tier sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical implies when groups matter (moving rotors, femm_block_integral, femm_field_stats) which gives useful downstream context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no stated precondition that objects must first be selected/created.

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