Create or update a MAtricks object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: each set's reply must read back the requested value, the console silently ignores rejected values, the first failure stops the rest, a locked MAtricks is refused, and it does not touch the selection or programmer. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational content. It is dense and could be broken into clearer segments, but little is wasted.

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 9-parameter nested config tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation, reset, verification, preview, failure/abort behavior, and the locked case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the wings distribution edge semantics (outer-to-centre) and a worked 'wings 2 with delay {from: <outer>, to: 0}' example for centre-out delay.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set MAtricks <n> per axis (x, y, z)' and the title clarifies create-or-update. An agent immediately knows this configures a MAtricks object's axis parameters. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling gma3_matricks, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

Gives concrete operating context: create: true makes a missing object, reset_unspecified: true resets an existing one, otherwise only given settings change, preview: true reports planned changes, and 'apply it with Recall MAtricks <n>'. Clear usage context, though no explicit when-not or sibling comparison.

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