set_tpa_curve_expo

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains how the expo value affects attenuation (negative for low throttle, positive for high throttle) and gives the default value. However, it does not state whether changes take effect immediately, require a reboot, or if there are any side effects. For a simple parameter setter, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 very concise, consisting of two clear sentences plus a prerequisite note and a type/default hint. It is well-structured, with the most important information (what it does and effect) first. Every part serves a purpose.

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 tool that sets a single integer parameter, the description provides complete context: the parameter's role, its range behavior, the required feature, and the default value. There is no output schema, but none is needed for a setter. All necessary information is present.

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?

The input schema only describes the parameter as 'Value for tpa_curve_expo (INT8)'. The description adds meaningful semantics: the effect of negative vs. positive values, the default of 20, and the range implications. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 identifies the tool as setting the tpa_curve_expo parameter and explains its effect on throttle-based attenuation. It is specific about the resource (TPA curve) and the action (setting the expo). However, it does not differentiate from sibling TPA-related set tools like set_tpa_rate or set_tpa_curve_type, which have similar scopes.

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 mentions the prerequisite `USE_ADVANCED_TPA` feature, which provides a basic usage constraint. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus other TPA curve adjustments, such as set_tpa_breakpoint or set_tpa_curve_type. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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