set_water_body_gerstner_waves

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: it explains the steepness ramp behavior and the no-self-intersection criterion (total_steepness <= 1) that governs visual correctness. It does not state what happens to pre-existing wave settings on the body, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical class names are slightly verbose but justified.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers applicability, the validity constraint, remediation advice, and even the return fields. What is missing is the effect on existing waves on the body, which the destructive annotation implies but does not explain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema lacks: large_wave_steepness and small_wave_steepness drive a ramp, and both feed the total_steepness validity check along with num_waves. That is more than restating the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a Gerstner wave set ... and apply it to a wave-supporting water body') and names the concrete classes (UGerstnerWaterWaves + parametric generator). It also scopes the target (Lake/Ocean, rivers rejected), which separates it from siblings like set_water_body_gerstner_waves_spectrum and set_water_body_properties.

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?

Gives a clear applicability rule (only Lake/Ocean bodies support waves, rivers are rejected) and tells the agent what to do when total_steepness exceeds 1 (lower the steepness params and/or num_waves). It does not explicitly route to an alternative sibling for the river case, so it falls just short of 5.

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