tv_set_study_inputs

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the leading 'MUTATES' is consistent with them, so there is no contradiction. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: values are 'coerced to the input's declared type and validated against its options/min/max,' it 'returns the previous value for every change so it can be undone,' and it re-reads after setting. This tells an agent the mutation is reversible and how values are processed.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the destructive 'MUTATES' warning is front-loaded, and every remaining clause ('re-read,' 'coerced,' 'validated,' 'returns previous value for undo') adds a distinct piece of information. Nothing repeats what the input schema already documents.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description covers the core behavior, value processing semantics, and the undo mechanism. The only gap is that, with no output schema, the full return structure beyond 'previous value for every change' is unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3 with the schema carrying the parameter documentation burden. The description adds some extra meaning by explaining how values in the inputs map are handled (coerced to declared type, validated against options/min/max), which the schema does not state, though it does not elaborate on individual parameter formats.

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?

Opens with the explicit verb 'MUTATES' and names the exact resource and action: 'set one or more inputs on a study by id, then re-read them.' The 'by id' scoping and the re-read behavior distinguish it from the sibling read tool tv_get_study_inputs without needing to open any schema.

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 mutating purpose is inferable by contrast with siblings such as tv_get_study_inputs (read counterpart) and tv_study_template (template application), so when-to-use is reasonably clear from context. However, the description never names an alternative explicitly or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to agent inference.

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