Spr set nozzles

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'One undo step', that orifice diameter causes K to be recalculated, and that clearRequiredPressure resets to the design default. It doesn't cover permissions or partial-failure behavior, but it clears the annotation baseline.

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-loads the purpose and selection mechanics, then the settable fields, then the undo note. Dense but dense in proportion to 15 parameters. The trailing rules-reference sentence is slight tack-on but relevant. No 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 15-parameter, 0-required bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers selection, all mutation targets, and the undo unit of work. Return values aren't needed since there's no output schema. Minor gaps: no explicit note on what happens if a filter matches nothing and no statement of required permissions.

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 73% schema coverage the baseline is around 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: clearRequiredPressure = 'back to the design default', orifice diameter → 'K recalculated', zone as 'deluge zone', and disabled semantics. It resolves the ambiguity between the selection params (kind/zone/lineNo) and the set params (setKind/setZone/setLineNo), which the schema alone doesn't make obvious.

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+resource: batch-setting nozzle data on pipe-network nozzles. The scope ('many... at once') and the set-able fields distinguish it from single-node tools like spr_update_sprinkler_head and spr_update_node in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 explains how to select targets (all/headIds/nodeIds/zone/lineNo/kind, filters combine), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never states when to use this bulk setter instead of the sibling single-item updaters. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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