set_dtm_control_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the build=True behavior (rebuilds DTM→PLC control information) but does not mention other side effects such as overwriting existing parameters, required permissions, or reversibility. The 'read first' hint implies overwriting, but this is not stated explicitly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a critical reference to the read counterpart. No redundant words; every clause adds value.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential workflow (read first, mirror schema) and the build option's effect. It omits details like error handling, behavior when build=False, and the exact XML structure, but the directive to mirror the schema provides a path to accuracy. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'xml' by describing its content (scanner sizing and %MW mapping) and for 'build' by explaining its effect. It does not explain 'name', though its role as a DTM identifier is inferable from context. Coverage is partial, justifying a moderate score.

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 action: 'Write a master DTM's control parameters' with a specific resource (CetControlParameterInput XML) and specifies the content domain (scanner sizing and %MW mapping). It also differentiates from the sibling get_dtm_control_parameters by the verb 'Write' vs 'Read', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Read the current values with get_dtm_control_parameters first and mirror the schema', providing a clear precondition and workflow. It does not, however, contrast with other write siblings like set_master_dtm_dataset or set_dtm_dataset, so the guidance is partial.

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