Spr pump sizing

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description explicitly states 'apply=true writes the proposed curve to the water source'. An agent trusting the annotation would not expect a state-mutating mode, so the description contradicts the declared safety profile. The description is otherwise unusually rich (deterministic, NFPA 20 churn/150 % checks, NPSHa, rule references), but the read-only mismatch is a genuine hazard.

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 purpose, then modes, then the apply/chaining caveat, and it ends with rule IDs. It is dense and the first sentence is very long, but given the absence of an output schema the enumeration of computed outputs is load-bearing rather than filler.

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 23-parameter computational tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (rated flow/pressure, NFPA 20 checks, power, NPSHa, governing zone/nozzle, what-if hints) and explains the three modes. The main gap is that the conditional write path is not reconciled with the declared read-only annotation.

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 23 parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of mode and apply and ties them to behaviour, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 ('Pump specification for the sprinkler / water-spray network') and then enumerates the three modes, so an agent knows exactly which capability it is invoking. It is clearly distinguishable from data-editing siblings like spr_add_water_source, spr_update_water_source and the downstream spr_run_calc.

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?

Explicit per-mode routing: from_design is the default, target is for a required flow/pressure at the source node, check_curve is for validating a curve, and 'apply=true ... (then spr_run_calc)' gives sequencing. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over neighbouring analysis tools such as spr_design_review or spr_list_summary.

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