Set Gr4 Install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it warns that the backend is restarted, running sessions are lost, the block catalog is reloaded, persist saves the setting to config, and GR4_PREFIX still takes precedence.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then acceptable path forms, side effects, and persistence behavior. Every sentence adds relevant operational detail without waste.

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?

The description covers the important operational facts an agent needs before calling this side-effecting tool: accepted path forms, restart/session-loss implications, catalog reload, persistence, and environment-variable precedence. An output schema exists, so return-value details are appropriately not repeated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that path may be the install prefix, its bin/ folder, or the gr4cp_server binary, and it explains that persist=True saves the choice to the gr4-mcp config file; it does not explicitly describe persist=False behavior beyond implication.

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 and resource: register a GNU Radio 4 install for the backend to run from, with a concrete example path. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as attach_backend or backend_status.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: setting the GNU Radio 4 install that the backend should run from. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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