set_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Set automation points' indicates a mutation but omits side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or the meaning of the 'dry_run' parameter. The modes are listed but not explained.

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 a single, concise sentence that covers the core action and available modes without unnecessary verbosity.

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 is too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and multiple modes. It lacks information about return values, success/failure behavior, or the effect of each mode, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 only 22% (2 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning: it lists modes but does not clarify the purpose of 'points', 'minOnset', 'maxOnset', or 'simplifyThreshold'. The existing description for 'points' contains a typo ('blick' instead of 'block'), further reducing clarity.

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 tool's function: 'Set automation points on parameter curve' with explicit modes (add, replace_all, remove_range). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_parameters or set_phonemes.

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 implies the tool is for modifying automation curves but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison with get_parameters or other setter tools is provided.

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