set_dtm_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about the 'IP Address and Gateway address are not in the same domain' build error, and discloses that setting gateway/subnet rewrites the project archive, reloads it, and marks it unsaved (requiring build_project and save_project). This goes beyond what's in the schema and provides critical side-effect information.

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 paragraph but well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, then details address formats, optional parameters with a warning, and side effects. It is compact yet information-dense, with no filler. The only minor inefficiency is the parenthetical example, which is helpful but could be trimmed.

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 covers the essential side effects (archive rewrite, unsaved state) and the warning condition. It does not mention repo/return value, nor whether setting only address also requires a save, and leaves the 'name' parameter unresolved. Still, it is largely complete for a setter 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 'address' as IP or node number, and clarifies constraints for 'gateway' (same domain) and 'subnet' (part of addressing). However, it omits the required 'name' parameter entirely and does not specify the format for 'subnet' (e.g., '255.255.255.0'), leaving ambiguity for a required field.

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 the specific verb 'Set' and the resource 'a slave DTM's bus address', and distinguishes between IP address vs node number based on protocol. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like set_dtm_dataset or set_dtm_control_parameters, which handle different aspects of a DTM.

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?

It implicitly defines when to use (to set address, optionally gateway/subnet) and provides context for the gateway/subnet behavior (must be same IP domain). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some routing to the agent's judgment.

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