set_pipe_status

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

No annotations are available, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It lacks information about side effects, permissions, or consequences of opening/closing a pipe.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Open or close a pipe.' The Args section is structured but lacks unnecessary detail, making it efficient.

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 tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meanings but omits behavioral context. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but completeness is average.

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 explains each parameter briefly: network_id is 'Session id', pipe_id is 'Pipe name/ID', status has values 'OPEN' or 'CLOSED'. This adds some meaning but does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 purpose: 'Open or close a pipe.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include set_pump_status and set_valve_status, so the tool is well-distinguished for pipe status operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or contextual cues. The description simply states the action without addressing selection criteria.

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