add_drop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that bus is a substring and drop is a topo number, but does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the bus does not exist, or any side effects. For a modifiable tool, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences: the first defines the action and example, the second gives usage workflow. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the first sentence could be slightly more concise. Overall, it earns its space.

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's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and basic parameter info, but lacks details on part_number and version, error conditions, return value, or safety implications. It is somewhat complete but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'bus' and 'drop' (e.g., bus substring, drop topo number), but leaves 'part_number' and 'version' unexplained. This partial coverage adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool adds a drop to a bus, provides a concrete example (remote X80 EIO drop on M580), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_rack and add_io_module by positioning these as subsequent steps.

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 gives explicit usage context by noting that bus is a substring from get_hardware and that drop is the topo number. It also guides the user to use add_rack and add_io_module afterward, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings.

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