mxa_set_harm_number

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose any side effects, state changes, or connectivity requirements. Without annotations, the description would carry the full burden; with them, it still fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short (one line), but this brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is under-specified rather than concise, as it squanders the opportunity to provide necessary guidance in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters (including a JSON string), no parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The description is minimally informative.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'alias' or 'params_json' at all, leaving the purpose of these parameters entirely ambiguous. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw structure.

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 '[MXA] 设置谐波数量' translates to 'Set harmonic number', which provides a basic verb+resource identification. However, it does not clarify what 'harmonic number' specifically refers to (e.g., which harmonic to select? or how many harmonics to include?) and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like mxa_config_harmonics or mxa_set_harm_average, which also relate to harmonics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mxa_config_harmonics). There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would indicate this tool is appropriate.

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