replace_rung_structured

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), but the description adds no behavioral context such as what happens to the existing rung, reversibility, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but provides zero additional transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff – every word contributes. It could potentially be expanded with structured details, but for concise communication it is well-formed, though slightly too sparse to earn a top score.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, this is a complex tool, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. It fails to explain how to construct 'expression', what 'outputs' means, or how rung_index and revision interact, making it grossly incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no parameter-level detail. Terms like 'expression' or 'outputs' are left completely unexplained, placing the full burden on the user to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 action ('Replace a rung') and the key differentiator ('structured boolean expression instead of raw mnemonic text'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'replace_rung' that use raw text.

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 phrase 'instead of raw mnemonic text' implies when to use this tool (when a structured expression is available) and contrasts it with alternatives, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance or a formal 'use when' statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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