set_link_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: discloses bidirectional application, running-node-only scope, and clearing semantics via 0. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent must know to safely invoke the 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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It packs essential behaviors and parameter semantics into four sentences with no fluff.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, scope, side effects, and clearing behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The tool is fully understandable for safe invocation.

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 fully explain each parameter. It provides units for every dimension (percent, ms, kbit/s) and explains the 'pass only what you want' semantics plus the clear-by-0 behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Inject impairment on a link', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_link_state. It enumerates exactly which impairments it sets (packet loss, delay, jitter, bandwidth), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: pass only dimensions you want to set, impairments apply to both directions, and only affect running nodes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is enough for an agent to know how to apply it correctly.

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