set_river_width_depth_at_point

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds the read-back behavior and exact return shape, which is useful, but says nothing about what happens to unset fields, error conditions, or why the call is destructive beyond overwriting width/depth.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the action and its scope come first, followed by the return object. No redundant prose; the Returns line is justified because no output schema exists.

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 100% schema coverage and a return-shape summary filling the missing output schema, the definition gives enough to invoke the tool. It loses a point for not distinguishing this point-level setter from the bulk sibling set_river_widths_depths, a distinction that matters for correct selection.

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 100%, and every parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that width and/or depth are applied at the spline key, adding no format, range, or constraint beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Set a river's width and/or depth at a spline input key', and scopes it to river water bodies. It does not name or contrast with the similar sibling set_river_widths_depths, so the agent must infer that this is the single-key variant.

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 parenthetical '(river water bodies only)' gives an implied when-not (not lakes/oceans) and 'at a spline input key' implies the per-point use case. However, there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over set_river_widths_depths or other river tools.

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