ras_flow_set_hydrograph

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it edits a copy of the project, returns a before/after summary, can create a boundary if none exists ('kind' parameter), and supports a wide range of hydrograph types. It also mentions the count line rewrite behavior, adding useful implementation detail.

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 a single dense paragraph of about 150 words, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds substantive information, and while it could be organized with bullet points for readability, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers operations, boundary selection methods, supported boundary types, the copy behavior, and the return summary. It even references ras_project_info for boundary_index, which helps the agent understand how to obtain required context.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of key parameters: 'values' can be any length, 'multiplier' scales existing values, 'qmult' is applied at run time, and 'interval' has examples. It also clarifies relationships between selection parameters (boundary_index vs river/reach/rs vs area/bc_line).

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 description opens with 'Edit ONE boundary condition table in an unsteady flow file (.u##):' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It enumerates the operations (replace values, scale, set qmult, change interval) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on unsteady flow file editing.

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?

It provides clear guidance on how to select the boundary (boundary_index, river/reach/rs, or area/bc_line) and lists supported hydrograph types. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, though the usage context is strongly implied.

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