Spr set valves

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

Goes beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing domain behavior: a closed valve excludes that pipe from the calculation and isolates downstream, and a zone valve is open only in the 'all' and its own zone scenario. This is real behavioral context an agent could not get from the annotations or 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?

Front-loads the core action and follows with targeting rules and rule references; dense parentheticals carry useful information rather than filler. Slightly crowded but every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers selectors, default scope, valve semantics, and points to the governing bulc rules. It omits error/edge behavior and preconditions (e.g. needing a loaded network), leaving minor gaps.

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 already 88%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the selection model tying pipeId+index, tag, and zone together and reiterates the index default. It clarifies relationships between parameters rather than merely repeating field descriptions.

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 specific verbs (open/close) on a specific resource (valves) plus a secondary operation (set tag/zone), and explains what a closed valve means for the model. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like spr_set_pipes and spr_set_nozzles, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent how to target valves: by pipeId (+ index, default all valves on the pipe), by tag, or by zone, and clarifies the zone-valve scenario semantics. It gives clear usage context but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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