set_values

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

The annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: writes are atomic ('all or nothing'), unit encoding rules are specified, and the tool returns the values now in effect. These traits are not captured by the annotations or schema.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and target resource, then packs atomicity, unit handling, and return semantics into a compact second sentence.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and safety hints in annotations, the description is complete: it explains the operation, failure semantics, input encoding, and return behavior. The only small gap is explicit alternative-tool guidance, which is already handled by the clear purpose and sibling list.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for the values parameter, explaining how plain numbers and unit-bearing strings are interpreted. The schema covers values with an example but leaves system_id undocumented; the description cannot fully compensate for that, though system_id is self-explanatory from its name.

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 ('Set') and names the exact target resource ('inputs, parameters or states') plus the addressing mechanism ('by path'). This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from read-only or analysis siblings like get_system, list_variables, solve, and simulate. It is not a tautology and states atomicity as part of the operation.

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 clearly frames this as the mutation of existing values by path, which is distinct from creating components (create_system/add_component), connecting elements, or running simulations/solves. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not conditions, but the context is enough for an agent to separate it from the sibling tools.

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