pid_insert_tank

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

The description only states that a tank is inserted and provides no behavioral detail beyond that. With no annotations available, the description does not disclose whether this is a drawing mutation, how placement coordinates are interpreted, whether any redraw or regeneration occurs, or what the operation returns.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting tokens.

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 tool with five parameters, zero required, and no annotation coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits tank type semantics, coordinate system context, and any guidance on how the inserted tank behaves in the drawing, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details.

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 adds no parameter information beyond the schema field names. The x, y, width, and height parameters are somewhat self-explanatory, but tank_type is entirely unexplained with no enum values, and the description does not clarify units, coordinate origin, or allowed tank type strings.

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 clear resource ('an ISA 5.1 process tank or vessel'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling P&ID insertion tools like pid_insert_valve and pid_insert_pump by naming the tank/vessel entity type.

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 context is implied by the tool name and the ISA 5.1 process tank reference, making it obvious this is for adding tanks rather than valves, pumps, or instruments. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any constraints such as drawing setup requirements.

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