femm_modify_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses the complex-current workaround, the required re-solve postcondition, and the underlying propnum mapping (1/2/0). It omits permission requirements, behavior when the circuit is absent, and error/reversibility semantics.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The embedded API-call references make it slightly cramped but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, with 5 parameters including an undocumented session and a required name, so the description does most of the work but not enough. It omits what the call returns and whether a save is needed after the mandated re-solve.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real units and type for current, ties series to the series/parallel concept, and maps rename to new_name with propnum codes. It leaves the required 'name' and the 'session' parameter entirely unexplained.

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 the verb ('Change') and resource ('a circuit') and enumerates the three modifiable aspects: current, series/parallel, rename. Distinguishable from the sibling femm_add_circuit by the modify-vs-add verb, though the description never names it.

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?

Provides a conditional hint (for complex current use femm_call('mi_modifycircprop', ...)) and a workflow step ('Re-solve afterwards'), which implies context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-femm_add_circuit guidance and no preconditions such as the circuit needing to exist.

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