Create or update a MAtricks object

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that 'Store MAtricks' copies the programmer's selection MAtricks, that each value is a separate set whose reply is read back, that the console silently ignores rejected values, that the first failure aborts the rest, and that locked or duplicate-named objects are refused before anything is sent. These are exactly the operational hazards an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and property list, then layered with create/overwrite semantics and failure behavior — no filler sentences. It is, however, one very dense block of long clauses (parentheticals, em-dashes) that is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 10-parameter nested mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: mutation scope, overwrite semantics, error/refusal conditions, verification read-back, and how to actually apply the result. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that wings distributions run from outer edges (from) toward the centre (to) and gives a worked example (wings 2 with delay {from: <outer>, to: 0}), plus units for fade/delay (seconds), phase (degrees) and speed (BPM), and the null/0 = None convention. The verify parameter's read-back comparison is only implied rather than stated.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Set MAtricks <n> per axis") and enumerates the properties it writes, so the operation is unambiguous. It also discloses the create-vs-update dual nature up front. It does not, however, name the sibling read tool (gma3_matricks) or otherwise explicitly distinguish itself from it, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Strong contextual guidance: create:true for missing objects, reset_unspecified:true for full overwrite of an existing one, preview:true to dry-run, and on_name_taken to control collision handling. It also clarifies that it does not touch the programmer and must be applied via 'Recall MAtricks <n>', which tells the agent this is a configuration not an application step. Lacks explicit routing to a sibling tool.

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