add_io_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals important behavioral constraints: part_number/version must match the catalog exactly, version may need adjustment ('try both'), and defaults for rack/drop/bus assume a local rack on the local bus. It also references get_hardware for topology, but omits side effects like whether an existing module gets overwritten or error behavior on invalid slots or part numbers.

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 tight, two-sentence paragraph that leads with the core purpose, then layers constraints and defaults. Every sentence adds value, with examples kept relevant and no filler. It's appropriately sized for the 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?

The description is fairly complete for a mutation tool: it covers purpose, constraints, defaults, and a hint for topology via get_hardware. Missing elements include what happens on failure (e.g., invalid part number, occupied slot) and whether the operation is reversible, which are important given no output schema and no annotations. These gaps keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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%, yet the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: part_number with concrete examples, version with compatibility hints, slot as rack position (CPU at slot 0), and rack/drop/bus defaults and local-bus semantics. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 uses the verb 'Add' with a specific resource ('hardware module') and target ('rack slot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like replace_io_module or remove_io_module. It also narrows the scope to IO/communication modules, making its purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect the schema.

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 explains when to use this tool (adding a module to a slot) and provides practical guidance like checking topology with get_hardware and defaults for rack/drop/bus. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as replace_io_module or mention when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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