modify_platform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that optional parameters can be omitted to keep current values, and mentions the return type (JSON with updated metadata). However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence, a bulleted parameter list, and a returns line. It is concise and each part is necessary.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (6 parameters), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type adequately. It is missing details on error handling or prerequisites (e.g., scenario must exist), but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides clear explanations for each parameter: scenario_id as UUID, platform_name, lat/lon/alt as new position (omit to keep current), and platform_type as new type (omit to keep current). This adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The first sentence clearly states the action and resource: 'Modify an existing platform's position or type.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_platform (create new) and delete_platform (delete).

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 implies usage for modifying position or type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new platform or deleting one. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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