replace_io_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical constraint that the old part number/version must match exactly and references get_hardware for validation, but it does not describe potential side effects, whether the old module is permanently removed, or any prerequisites beyond matching. This is partial transparency for a 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action and key constraint. The example adds clarity without verbosity, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool is moderately complex with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description does not cover the addressing parameters (bus, drop, rack) or explicitly state when to use this over add/remove, nor any consequences of the replacement. An agent would struggle to correctly supply all parameters without additional guidance.

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 for all 8 parameters. It only explains the old/new part number and version matching, but does not clarify the meaning or usage of bus, drop, rack, or slot beyond their names. The addressing parameters are left ambiguous, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (replace) and the resource (module), and specifies it is done 'in place (keeps the slot)', which distinguishes it from add_io_module and remove_io_module. The concrete example of swapping a 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?

The description implies when to use this tool through 'keeps the slot' and the example, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of add_io_module or remove_io_module, so the agent must infer the selection logic from context.

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