Set inputs

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the basic action of setting variables, but does not explain whether values are replaced or merged, whether changes persist across cycles, or what happens with missing inputs. The allow_missing parameter suggests configurable behavior, but the description does not address it.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action clearly and efficiently. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it an appropriately concise description.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, a nested values object, and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical information about session context, merge vs. replace behavior, the meaning of allow_missing, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these missing operational details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'input variables,' which weakly maps to 'values,' but session_id and allow_missing are entirely undocumented. The structure of the values object is also unspecified, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid input.

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: 'Set one or more input variables in the cycle model.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from read-only tools like list_variables and get_outputs, and from sweep_inputs which implies a different use case.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'set' implies a mutation use case, but it does not clarify when to choose set_inputs over sweep_inputs or whether it should be called before run_cycle. The purpose is clear but the context of use is left implicit.

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