edit_pump

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 implies mutation ('edit') but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. The only behavioral hint is the dependency on 'interval_id' from another tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and the critical prerequisite. However, it could be considered under-specified given the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the overall workflow beyond the interval_id prerequisite. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only explains 'interval_id' (from list_pump_intervals) but does not clarify the meaning or format of 'child_uid', 'start', 'left_amount', 'right_amount', 'units', 'duration', or 'notes'. Most parameters' purpose must be inferred from their names.

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 verb 'Edit' and resource 'pump entry', making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling edit tools like 'edit_feed', but the resource specificity is sufficient.

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 guides the agent to obtain 'interval_id' from 'list_pump_intervals' first, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_pump' or other edit tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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