change_water

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that it computes NDWI and interprets the difference, but it does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., thresholded change areas, continuous values) or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. Moderately transparent but lacks detail.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and method. No superfluous information, every word adds value.

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 lacks an output schema, but the description only vaguely mentions 'interprets the difference' without describing the output format or thresholds. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., atmospheric correction) and context about how the change interpretation is performed, leaving the agent underinformed for a reasonably complex operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Green band reflectance for the earlier date'). The description adds the context of NDWI but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 it detects water body changes using NDWI, specifies the computation (NDWI for two dates from Green and NIR bands), and distinguishes itself from siblings like change_vegetation (which likely uses NDVI) and spectral_ndwi (which computes single-date NDWI).

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 usage for water body change detection over two dates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., change_detect, spectral_ndwi) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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