td_set_params

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses pre-send validation against the index, accepted value forms, the fallback bridge call when op_type is missing, and write refusal without the correct owner. This goes far beyond a generic mutation warning.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then adds supporting details in dense, purposeful sentences. Every sentence contributes: value grammar, validation behavior, fallback lookup, and ownership requirement. No filler or repetition.

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 the complexity of value forms, ownership requirements, and validation behavior, the description covers all essential guidance for calling the tool correctly. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly: it defines pars value shapes (constant, expr, bind, pulse), explains owner as the claimed-area owner, and explains op_type as an optional type hint that triggers a bridge lookup when absent. Even the path parameter is contextualized through 'existing operator' and index reference validation.

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 a specific verb ('Set'), a resource ('parameters'), and a target ('an existing operator'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative like td_set_flags, which keeps it from a 5.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for setting operator parameters, requires an owner matching the claimed area, and explains when op_type is needed. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of 5.

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