set_dimension_analysis

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

The annotations only indicate a mutating operation, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the whole dimensionAnalysis is replaced, that overallAnalysis is preserved, that an empty array clears the configuration, and that the tool is unsupported for random_knowledge_quiz forms. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 every sentence carrying useful information: replacement semantics, scene requirements, clearing behavior, prerequisite action, and an unsupported case. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 nested parameters and scene-dependent requirements, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers replacement semantics, clearing, unsupported form types, and the get_form prerequisite, while the output schema and rich parameter descriptions handle the remaining detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning by tying fieldCodes to knowledge_quiz and formula to scored_quiz, and by recommending get_form as a prerequisite. This helps the agent reason about scene-dependent parameters more efficiently than reading each schema field alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with an exact resource ('multi-dimension analysis (form.report.dimensionAnalysis)') and states the replacement semantics. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it replaces the analysis as a whole while not touching overallAnalysis, which separates it from other form-update siblings.

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 usage context: call get_form first to read question codes, pass an empty dimensions array to clear, and avoid random_knowledge_quiz forms. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative tool for the unsupported case, but it still provides strong when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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