spss_formats

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly clarifies that this changes display formats rather than data values, and it mentions the SPSS dependency, but it does not state whether the file is modified in place, how output_path relates to the operation, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects may occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.

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, with the key purpose in the first phrase. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, syntax, example format mapping, and prerequisite. There is no padding or irrelevant context.

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 tool with three parameters including a nested object, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent still lacks clarity about what file_path points to, whether output_path is required for saving, and what effect the operation has on the source file. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input semantics.

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 explain parameters, and it does explain the 'formats' parameter well with a concrete mapping example. However, it provides no semantic detail for file_path or output_path, which are important for actually invoking the tool. The formats explanation is useful but the compensation for the other parameters is incomplete.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Change variable display formats' using the FORMATS command. It gives concrete examples that make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like spss_variable_labels or spss_value_labels, so it misses the last bit of differentiation.

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 provides syntax and a prerequisite ('Requires IBM SPSS Statistics') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told when FORMATS is appropriate compared to variable labels, recoding, or other SPSS transformation tools. The implied use case from the first sentence is the only signal.

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