set_quality_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions required, or the impact on the network simulation. For a tool that modifies simulation settings, these details are important but missing.

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, using a docstring format that lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic parameter semantics but lacks overall context. It does not explain the return value (though output schema may handle that), nor does it provide usage context or behavioral implications. It is minimally adequate for a knowledgeable agent.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters: network_id as session id, quality_type with enumerated options, tracer_node as source node for TRACE, chemical_name as species name for CHEM, and units as concentration units. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles, though it could specify valid units values.

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 function: 'Set the water-quality analysis type.' The verb 'set' combined with the specific resource 'water-quality analysis type' makes the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_node_base_demand' or 'set_pattern'.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose 'AGE' vs 'TRACE' quality analysis. No prerequisites or context for using the tool are given. This forces the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

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