set_analysis_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: per-key independent attempts and reporting, read-back comparison with NaN/Infinity caveats, 'not applied' outcomes, unit expectations (End Time in seconds), value rejection before send, and a documented interface limitation for selection settings. An agent knows the failure modes and side effects before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and verification model, and nearly every clause adds operational detail that prevents a bad call. There is redundancy (read-back/comparison stated twice) and heavy parenthetical nesting, but no filler or marketing language.

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 high-complexity mutation tool with an output schema, this covers parsing, validation ranges, key resolution ambiguity, failure reporting, and known interface limitations. The only real gap is the unexplained analysis_index argument, which is minor against the breadth of what is disclosed.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. settings_json is covered thoroughly — key matching rules (full name, caption, last segment, case/punctuation-insensitive), ambiguity handling, value parsing (

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 and resource (set analysis settings) and immediately qualifies it with verification semantics ('each value is read back and compared', 'each key attempted independently'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling paths by naming get_analysis_settings for reads and add_keyword_commands/set_dynain_output for selection settings.

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 explicit when-to-use: read current values with get_analysis_settings first ('-1 is Program Controlled'), and for drop-down settings like Hourglass Type or Output Format use keyword snippets or the GUI instead. That is a concrete exclusion plus named alternatives, not inferred guidance.

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