dma_mutate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond saying it changes DMA assignment, it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when deleting a request; the only behavioral hint is the schema's 'save' parameter, which the description itself does not mention.

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 enumerates the valid operations without filler. Every part of the sentence maps directly to how an agent would call the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation set and parameter naming convention, which is the minimum viable level. However, it omits behavioral context such as side effects, project-state prerequisites, and save behavior that an agent would need before invoking a mutation.

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 100%, so every parameter already has structured documentation; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a small semantic point by noting parameter names must match CubeMX naming ('Priority/Mode/... exactly as CubeMX names them'), but otherwise does not extend what the schema already says.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Change DMA assignment') and enumerates the exact operations: add, delete, set flow, and set one DMA parameter. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling mutation tool mdma_mutate or explain when to choose it over dma_query.

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 lists operations but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent is not told when to pick dma_mutate versus dma_query or mdma_mutate, nor whether a project must be open first.

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