set_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an interlock (XY mode requires timebase XY) and that ay/by apply to both manual and track cursors, but says nothing about persistence, required instrument state, or whether settings are commutative/reversible for this mutation tool.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with each line mapping to a parameter group and no filler. The telegraphic capitalization (TRACk, AMPLitude, SECond) is slightly cryptic but readable.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers essentially every argument, and the output schema removes the need to explain return values. Only the safety/state-prerequisite dimension is left thin.

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% with 16 undocumented parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it glosses mode, cursor_type, source/source2, ax/bx, ay/by, indicator, tunit, vunit, track_mode, and all four xy_* fields with units and enum-like values. It falls short of full compensation only in that the cross-parameter defaults are never stated.

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 and resource ('Configure cursors') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling read tools get_cursor_values and get_cursor_xy_values, leaving the read/write boundary implicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The only conditional guidance is internal to the parameters (XY requires timebase mode XY), which is dependency info rather than usage guidance.

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