pid_insert_pump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the insertion action but does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a block reference, affecting the active layer), coordinate system, units, or how existing entities might be affected. The word 'insert' implies a mutation but leaves important behavioral detail unstated.

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 tightly written sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and object. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a moderately parameterized tool, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks critical operational detail such as what 'radius' means, how rotation is interpreted, and whether the insertion is relative to a coordinate system. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with input semantics.

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. It adds value by listing plausible values for pump_type (centrifugal, diaphragm, metering), but it gives no explanation for x, y, radius, rotation, their units, or how they affect the inserted pump. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with an empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Insert') and a specific resource ('ISA 5.1 process pump'), and further enumerates the supported pump subtypes (centrifugal, diaphragm, metering). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling insertion tools such as pid_insert_valve, pid_insert_tank, and pid_insert_instrument.

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 implies the tool is for adding a pump symbol to a P&ID drawing, which is enough context to identify the general use case. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point to alternatives for other symbol types.

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