set_valve_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Set the initial setting' implying a mutation, but does not describe side effects (e.g., impact on simulation results), prerequisites (e.g., network must be loaded), or the return value despite an output schema existing.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant but brief. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary content.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the parameters' meaning, especially the setting value. However, it lacks details about return values and prerequisites (e.g., network ID validity), leaving some gaps.

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 coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'setting' parameter per valve type (pressure setpoint for PRV/PSV/PBV, flow rate for FCV, loss coefficient for TCV). The Args section names parameters but adds minor value beyond schema titles.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'valve setting', and it distinguishes from siblings like 'set_valve_status' by specifying that it sets a numeric parameter (pressure setpoint, flow rate, loss coefficient) rather than a status.

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 guidance by mapping valve types to their respective setting units, explaining what the 'setting' parameter means for different valves. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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