set_pump_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavior. It fails to disclose important details such as whether the operation is idempotent, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting network simulation), or what happens if the pump is already in the requested state. The description only states the action without behavioral context.

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 concise: one sentence for the action followed by three parameter explanations. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no superfluous words. Every element contributes to understanding.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or confirmation of the status change. It also lacks context about required prior steps (e.g., load_network) or that this tool is part of a simulation lifecycle. The description is too minimal to be fully self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context to all three parameters: network_id as 'Session id.', pump_id as 'Pump link name/ID.', and status with explicit mappings 'OPEN (running) or CLOSED (stopped).' This goes beyond the schema titles, which are minimal.

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 explicitly states 'Start or stop a pump,' which is a specific verb and resource. It provides the status parameter with values OPEN (running) and CLOSED (stopped), clearly defining the action. This differentiates it from sibling tools like set_pump_speed or set_pump_head_curve, which handle different aspects of pump control.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and parameters imply it is for toggling pump operation, there is no mention of prerequisites, such as having the network loaded, or comparisons with other pump-related tools. The usage context is weakly implied but not stated.

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