set_probe_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful behavioral detail: contacts under 100 um apart are sorted jointly, positions are interpreted in channel order, and geometry feeds downstream tools. It does not disclose side effects, persistence, overwrite behavior, or response value for this setter, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact paragraph, starts with the core purpose, and every sentence adds semantics: layout names, parameter mapping, downstream effects, and proximity sorting. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 5-parameter configuration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the needed layout, parameter, and prerequisite context. It does not mention how to overwrite or clear geometry or what the response is, but those are secondary for invoking this setter correctly.

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 explain the parameters, and it does: it maps each layout enum value to its relevant inputs ('grid' needs n_columns, 'linear' uses pitch_um, 'explicit' takes positions_um in [[x, y], ...] channel order). Only session_id is left to the schema, where its required status is self-evident.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Tell the server where... contacts are') and the target resource ('the recording's contacts'), with a clear condition ('for sessions whose file does not say'). It stands apart from siblings like get_probe and plot_probe because it is about setting geometry rather than retrieving or visualizing it.

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 gives a clear condition for use ('for sessions whose file does not say') and notes downstream consumers ('Geometry is used by sort_spikes and plot_probe'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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