cst_set_parameters_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('change') but never states whether changes persist without the save flag taking effect, what happens to parameters not listed, permission requirements, or failure modes. For an unannotated mutating tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and a nested object parameter whose shape is undefined, the description is too thin for a mutating tool. Key details an agent needs to call it correctly are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that multiple parameters may be supplied, but does not explain the key/value structure of the `parameters` object (name-to-value mapping, value types) or mention the `save` boolean at all. The schema fails to document either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (design parameters) with scope ('one or more'), and 'through the CST parameter list' describes the mechanism. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like cst_define_parameters_tool, cst_delete_parameter_tool, or cst_get_parameters_tool, which an agent must differentiate between.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives despite three related parameter siblings (define/delete/get). The agent is left to infer that this tool is for modifying existing parameters rather than defining new ones or deleting them.

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