update_zone_clearance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., does it trigger refill? permissions needed? constraints on values?). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It contains no waste, but missing details mean the sentence carries little information density. An average score reflects the trade-off.

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?

Given the tool's medium complexity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description should provide more context about expected behavior and return values. It does not explain what the agent gets after update (e.g., confirmation, updated zone object) or any timing implications.

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. It only vaguely links 'clearance setting' to clearance_mm and 'zone' to zone_id. No units, ranges, or typical values are given for clearance_mm. The agent lacks crucial detail for correct invocation.

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 ('Update') and the specific resource ('clearance setting of a copper zone'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_zone_net (updates net) and update_zone_priority (updates priority) by targeting the clearance attribute.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the zone must exist), preconditions (e.g., zone might need to be selected), or when not to use it (e.g., if zone is locked). The agent must infer usage from context.

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