set_master_dtm_dataset

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: reload from exchange archive, project becomes unsaved, validation rules for GUIDs and indices, and the need to subsequently build and save. It does not cover authorization or error handling, but the side effects are well communicated.

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 long with a full XML example and detailed rules. While front-loaded with the purpose, it could be more concise by summarizing the XML structure, but the detail is useful for correct usage.

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 complexity and no output schema, the description explains the outcome (project reloaded, unsaved) and next steps (build_project, save_project). It also references where the result appears (get_dtm_control_parameters), providing good contextual completeness.

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% and the description fails to explain the 'xml' and 'dtm' parameters. The XML snippet suggests the format but does not map to the parameters, leaving the agent unclear about what to pass.

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 states 'Write back a modified master DTM dataset (adds/edits Modbus scan lines) and reload the project', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_dtm_dataset or get_master_dtm_dataset.

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 provides detailed instructions on how to construct the Modbus request node and states that after the call the project is reloaded and unsaved, advising to run build_project and save_project. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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