set_reservoir_head

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains that the tool modifies the reservoir head, but does not disclose side effects, validation rules, authorization requirements, or what happens on failure. It is minimally adequate 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 extremely concise: one declarative sentence plus a bulleted list of parameters. Every element adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (three required parameters, no nested objects, simple scalar head value) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what each parameter means, sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter beyond the schema types: network_id as 'Session id', reservoir_id as 'Reservoir node name/ID', and head as 'Total head value in the network's pressure-head units'. Since the schema itself has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates and provides clear semantics.

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: setting the total head (water-surface elevation) of a reservoir. The verb 'Set' combined with the specific resource 'reservoir head' makes the action unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling setter tools that target different properties (e.g., diameter, roughness).

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage without any explicit 'when' or 'when-not' instructions.

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