pid_insert_instrument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Insert' signals a mutation, but the description does not clarify what is created, where it is placed, whether it modifies the active drawing, or what side effects occur. It adds little beyond the obvious action.

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 focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the examples add useful context without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple insertion tool.

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?

While an output schema exists and the parameter list is simple, the description still lacks critical context: no coordinate system or unit hints, no explanation of loop_num, no behavior details, and no usage alternatives. The agent can select the tool but must guess at important calling conventions.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the tag format with examples; x, y, radius, and especially loop_num are left to inference from their names and defaults. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Insert') and a precise resource type ('ISA 5.1 instrument bubble') with concrete tag examples. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pid_insert_valve, pid_insert_pump, and pid_insert_tank.

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 usage is implied by the instrument-bubble terminology and the sibling pid_insert_* tools, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. An agent can infer the intended use, but guidance is not explicit.

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