configure_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether configuration is partial or full-replace, whether it is destructive or reversible, what permissions or entity state are required, or what 'native entity methods' means for the caller. It does at least signal a mutation of an existing nearby entity.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy: nothing is front-loaded beyond the verb, and no clarifying detail follows.

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?

This is a complex, 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation; the presence of an output schema only removes the need to describe return values. The description leaves the parameter semantics and behavioral contract entirely unaddressed, which is not adequate for this complexity.

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?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Fields like 'recipe', 'surface', 'direction', 'unit_number', 'station_name' and 'control_parameters' have no explanation anywhere, so the agent has no basis for choosing values or understanding which fields apply to which entity type.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Configure') and a resource class ('a nearby machine, station or control behavior'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'configure' is broad and 'control behavior' is undefined, so the agent cannot tell precisely what operation this performs versus siblings like place_entity or inspect_entity.

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 only contextual hint is 'nearby', implying a proximity constraint. There is no statement of when to use this versus place_entity (create), inspect_entity (read), or execute_lua (arbitrary scripting), and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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