Spr add drain

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the flow model (K√P), that K defaults to the project nozzle K, that orificeDiameterMm is converted with Cd 0.62, and that placing on a pipe splits it into a new branch node. It does not note that repeated calls create duplicate drains despite idempotentHint=false, a minor gap.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and placement modes with no filler, followed by a short rule pointer. The rule reference is cryptic but compact; nothing is redundant.

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 13-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision logic (which placement mode maps to which inputs) and the physics defaults that affect results. The remaining omissions are the coordinate/annotation parameters, which the schema partially covers via floorIndex.

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 only 38% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry weight. It usefully explains kFactor's default, the Cd 0.62 conversion for orificeDiameterMm, the pipe-position semantics, and disabled ('closed drain valve, not in the calculation'). But x/y/z, zone, label, and lineNo remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap for free-point placement.

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 ('Add a drain hole') and immediately qualifies it with the physical model ('always-open orifice, flow = K√P, no required pressure'), which separates it from sibling orifice tools like spr_add_sprinkler_head or add_nozzle. It also enumerates the three valid placements, so an agent knows exactly what object is created.

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 context for the three placement modes (pipe + position, existing node, free point), which is effectively when to use each parameter set. However, it never contrasts this tool with the many sibling orifice/device tools (add_nozzle, spr_add_sprinkler_head, add_device) or states exclusions, so the choice between alternatives is left implicit.

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