set_pipe_diameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation effect but does not explain what happens on invalid input (e.g., negative diameter) or network state requirements. Basic but sufficient for a simple setter.

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 very concise, using a single sentence for purpose and an Args block for parameters. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values. Minor omission: no mention of network loading prerequisite, but siblings also lack this.

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%, but the description provides meaningful context for all three parameters: network_id is 'Session id', pipe_id is 'Pipe name/ID', diameter includes units ('mm or inches'). This adds value beyond the empty 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 clearly states 'Set the diameter of a pipe,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that modify other pipe properties like roughness, status, or length.

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 use when changing pipe diameter but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., network must be loaded) or when not to use. No alternatives are mentioned, but the tool is straightforward.

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