starlink_stow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the operational requirement, the destructive consequence ('The dish will lose connectivity while stowed'), and the recovery path via starlink_unstow. This gives an agent adequate behavioral understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, precondition, consequence, and recovery. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when it is allowed, what happens while stowed, and how to undo it. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents confirm as 'Must be true to stow the dish'. The description reiterates this requirement but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Stow the dish'), the target resource, and the physical result ('point face-down for storage or transport'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming starlink_unstow as the way to resume, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: stow for storage/transport, and use starlink_unstow to resume. It also states preconditions (STARLINK_WRITE_ENABLED=true and confirm=true). It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond unstow, but the guidance is solid.

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