replace_rack

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

With no annotations, description adds value by stating modules are kept if new rack has same slots. It could mention what happens if slots differ or if rack isn't changed (e.g., error handling), but current info is helpful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and example. No redundant 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?

Tool has 7 params, no output schema. Description provides a good overview but lacks details on parameter meanings and edge-case behavior (e.g., mismatched slots). Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and description only implicitly explains part numbers/versions through example. Parameters like rack, drop, bus are not explained, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 it replaces a rack in place, preserving modules where slots match, with an example. This differentiates it from siblings like add_rack or replace_io_module.

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 the use case (changing rack model) but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_rack). No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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