pid_insert_valve

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. It states the insertion action but does not explain coordinate reference, insertion point behavior, layer placement, units, default symbol behavior, or what happens in the current drawing upon insertion.

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 filler. The parenthetical valve-type list is the only extra content and it earns its place by enriching valve_type.

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 CAD symbol insertion tool, the description omits important context such as coordinate system, insertion semantics, layer behavior, and prerequisites. The output schema exists but does not substitute for missing placement and drawing-context guidance, and no annotations are present to cover safety or side effects.

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%, yet the description only partially compensates by listing gate, globe, check, ball, and butterfly, which helps clarify valve_type. However, it provides no semantic meaning for x, y, size, or rotation, leaving five parameters mostly unexplained.

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'), a specific resource ('ISA 5.1 process valve'), and enumerates the supported valve varieties. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as pid_insert_pump, 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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list; there is no explicit or implicit usage context beyond 'insert a valve'.

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