Update multiplicity bounds (lower and upper) on a SysML element such as a Property. Specify the feature ID and the new lower/upper values; use -1 for unbounded upper.
Set multiplicity bounds on a MultiplicityElement (Property, etc.). Use -1 for upper=*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lower | Yes | ||
| upper | Yes | ||
| feature_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the -1 convention for upper=*, which is a useful detail, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, validation rules, or the nature of the response. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. The key usage hint about -1 is front-loaded, which aids comprehension. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, but conciseness itself is well-executed.
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 tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what happens after a successful call, error handling, or any constraints on the bounds (e.g., lower <= upper). The output schema exists but the description does not reference it, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding.
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 explain the parameters. It indirectly references 'upper' via the -1 note and implies 'lower' through 'multiplicity bounds', but it does not describe feature_id or clarify the meaning or constraints of lower and upper. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'MultiplicityElement (Property, etc.)', which identifies the purpose without ambiguity. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on multiplicity bounds is distinct enough. The mention of 'Property, etc.' suggests a broader scope but remains clear.
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 a practical hint about using -1 for upper=*, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_flow_direction or set_aggregation. There is no guidance on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.