add_rack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It states that it adds a rack and mentions a procedural sequence, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., whether the drop must already exist), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a hardware mutation tool.

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 with no redundant wording. It front-loads the tool's purpose and packs procedural guidance into the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and gives a follow-up workflow, but it lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., an existing drop), parameter details for 'rack' and 'version', and information about return values or failure modes. It is adequate for basic use but incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that bus and drop are used to target the remote rack and gives an example part_number ('BME XBP 1200'). However, it does not explain the rack parameter or the version parameter, leaving some ambiguity. The description adds partial meaning but not complete coverage of all five parameters.

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 action: 'Add a rack to a drop' with a concrete example ('BME XBP 1200' in a remote EIO drop). It distinguishes from related tools like add_io_module and add_drop by focusing on the rack-level operation and even references the follow-up workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (adding a rack) and immediately instructs the agent on the next steps (add power supply/modules with add_io_module and set drop/bus accordingly). It implicitly differentiates from add_drop by focusing on racks within existing drops, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it.

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