Set White Hole reflection force per layer (macro, meso, or micro) from 0.0 to 1.0 to control PolyNodes spatial sonic synthesis intensity.
Set White Hole reflection force per layer (0.0-1.0).
Args: params: level and value.
Returns: JSON confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, giving a full safety profile. The description adds range and return confirmation, but does not explain what 'reflection force' affects or any side effects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this 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 short and front-loads the core action. The Args and Returns sections are somewhat redundant given the schema and output schema, but they do not bloat the text.
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 simple setter with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format. However, it lacks usage context and sufficient parameter explanation, leaving the agent to infer when and how to use the tool 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% for the top-level params object, so the description must compensate. It only says 'params: level and value' without explaining the 'level' enum values ('macro', 'meso', 'micro') or confirming that value is normalized. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema structure.
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?
States a specific verb 'Set', resource 'White Hole reflection force', and scope 'per layer (0.0-1.0)'. Distinguishes from the sibling blackhole_force by explicitly naming White Hole.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is a bare setter command with no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.