polynodes_resonator_freq_dist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, and destructive=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about what changing the distribution does or any side effects.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and short, but the 'Args: params: value. Returns: JSON confirmation.' boilerplate adds no information and reads as placeholder filler.

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 single-parameter setter with full annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it never explains what the frequency distribution concept controls, leaving the agent without meaningful context for the one parameter that matters.

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% for the top-level 'params' object, and the description's 'params: value' is a tautological restatement that adds no meaning. The only useful constraint (1.0-3.0) duplicates what the schema already specifies.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('resonator frequency distribution'), which is clearest against siblings like polynodes_resonator_balance or polynodes_resonator_switch. It does not explicitly name which sibling it is not, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many polynodes_resonator_* siblings. Only the numeric range is offered as context.

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