replace_io_module

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

The description discloses a key constraint (exact match required) and the fact that the slot is preserved. However, it lacks details on permissions, irreversibility, or side effects. With no annotations, the transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core action, a key feature, a prerequisite, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and a critical constraint, but given the complexity (8 parameters) and lack of output schema, it omits details on parameter semantics for drop and bus, and on post-replacement behavior. It is adequate for an experienced agent but not fully 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?

The description adds meaning for five required parameters (slot, old_part_number, old_version, new_part_number, new_version) and mentions rack via the example, but it does not explain drop and bus. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 replaces a module in place while keeping the slot, which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_io_module (removal) and add_io_module (adding to a new slot). The example of swapping the default power supply reinforces the purpose.

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 a clear prerequisite: the old part number and version must match the current module exactly, and it references get_hardware for verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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