replace_rack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior — modules are kept only where the new rack has the same slots — which is valuable. But it leaves the fate of modules in non-matching slots, error behavior for mismatched part numbers, and the destructive nature of the operation undisclosed for what is 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?

Two sentences with no filler, so it is efficient. However, the example uses an unpolished arrow notation ('...0800 new_project creates -> BME XBP 0400') that is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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 7-parameter hardware tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is thin. Addressing semantics (bus/drop/rack), version formats, and error conditions are all undefined, meaning an agent would struggle to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It only hints at part-number semantics through the example; bus, drop, rack, and both version parameters are entirely unexplained. The agent would have to guess how addressing and versioning work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a rack in place') and reinforces it with a concrete example (BME XBP 0800 -> BME XBP 0400). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_rack and replace_io_module, which do different things.

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 phrase 'in place' and the example imply this tool is for upgrading/resizing an existing rack rather than adding a new one, which loosely differentiates it from add_rack. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusion criteria.

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