set_master_dtm_dataset

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses significant side effects: the project is reloaded, left UNSAVED, must be validated with build_project, and the result appears in get_dtm_control_parameters. It also gives detailed Modbus rules. It does not mention permission requirements or potential data-loss implications of the reload, so it is not a 5.

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, but the length is justified by the exact XML template and validation rules needed for a correct call. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the rest is structured guidance followed by post-call steps. It could be slightly tighter but is appropriately detailed.

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?

The description provides strong operational context, workflow steps, and Modbus-specific rules, but it omits parameter mapping and never clarifies the role of dtm. Given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, this leaves a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 never explains what the dtm parameter is or explicitly maps the xml parameter to the provided XML template. The detailed node shape gives content-level guidance, but the agent is left to infer that xml carries the modified dataset and what dtm means.

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 opens with a precise action: 'Write back a modified master DTM dataset (adds/edits Modbus scan lines) and reload the project'. This names the specific resource and operation, and the master DTM scope distinguishes it from the sibling set_dtm_dataset. The Modbus scan-line focus makes selection 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?

Clear context is provided: use this when adding/editing Modbus scan requests and then validating via build_project. However, it never explicitly contrasts with set_dtm_dataset or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance stops short of full alternative routing.

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