set_dtm_control_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the build parameter's effect (rebuilding DTM→PLC control info) and recommends reading first, implying potential overwrite risk. However, it does not state whether the tool is destructive (e.g., overwrites without confirmation) or describe other side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main action and key detail, then providing additional context. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent: it explains the action, format, a key parameter effect, and a safety recommendation. It lacks explicit details on what name refers to and the exact format of the XML, but overall it is reasonably complete for a write operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the xml parameter as CetControlParameterInput XML, the build parameter as controlling rebuild, and mentions 'mirror the schema' for xml structure. However, it does not define the name parameter or provide full detail on format or constraints, adding some but not complete meaning.

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 writes a master DTM's control parameters, specifying the XML format and purpose (scanner sizing and %MW mapping). It distinguishes from the sibling get_dtm_control_parameters by indicating it is for writing, and includes a caution to read first.

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 explicitly advises to read current values with get_dtm_control_parameters first and mirror the schema, providing clear context for safe usage. It implies when to use (when writing control parameters) and offers a precaution, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the read tool.

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