Spr update pipe

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds real value beyond them: the valve list replaces all valves, [] removes them, valveDetails overrides and carries open/closed state, and C resets to the standard default unless cFactor is given. These are non-obvious mutation semantics not encoded in annotations.

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: the mutation is front-loaded, then the alternatives. Every clause earns its place by specifying a distinct field's behavior; no padding.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema but full schema description coverage, the description covers the mutation semantics, the reset rule, and the sibling routing. Minor gaps remain around permissions/prerequisites, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the C-resets-to-standard-default rule, the replace-all-versus-append semantics of the valves list, and that valveDetails overrides valves. That is more than merely restating the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (existing pipe) and enumerates the mutable properties: diameter, pipe standard, Hazen-Williams C, line number, and the inline valve list. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming spr_set_pipes and spr_set_valves, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes: bulk edits go to spr_set_pipes, single-valve open/close goes to spr_set_valves. The when-to-use-this vs alternatives is stated rather than implied, leaving little to inference.

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