change_cpu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Replace' but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, compatibility constraints, or any additional impact on the project. Given it's a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes an illustrative example without waste. Every word 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 mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after replacement, whether the tool returns a success/failure indication, or if any preconditions exist. The presence of many sibling hardware tools further demands clearer context to avoid misuse.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example ('BMX P34 2020' + '02.70') that hints at the format and relationship between part_number and version, but it does not explain how to obtain valid values (e.g., from get_hardware) or the full meaning of each parameter. This adds some value but is insufficient for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('project's CPU'), with an example that disambiguates from sibling tools like replace_io_module or replace_rack. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 when to use this tool (when a CPU replacement is needed) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must be open) or when not to use it, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than explicit.

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