set_tank_parameters

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

The description discloses that 'Only provided parameters are changed; others retain their current values', which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations exist to provide safety or destructiveness hints, and the description omits potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose and a single behavioral detail. The parameter list is necessary given schema coverage, so it's appropriately structured with no waste.

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 update tool, the description explains partial update behavior. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., tank existence), validation, or output format. With an output schema present, the omission of return details is acceptable, but other contextual gaps remain.

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 parameter list in the description adds minimal meaning (e.g., 'network_id: Session id.'). While it clarifies each parameter, the explanations are terse and lack constraints or format details.

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 'Update one or more parameters of a tank node', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling set_* tools beyond the parameter list, which limits distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are distinct by object type, the description lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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