reload_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that COM connections are kept, the execute_python namespace is cleared, and no restart is required. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no Inventor is connected or whether the reload can fail, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage and behavioral notes. No sentence is wasted, and the key constraint about preserving COM connections is included efficiently.

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 low-complexity, the schema fully documents the only parameter, and an output schema exists. The description covers purpose, when to use it, and important side effects, but does not mention failure modes or preconditions such as an active connection.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'instance' parameter, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Hot-reload inventor_api.py from disk.' It clearly states the tool reloads the wrapper module, and the note about clearing the execute_python namespace distinguishes it from related execution tools like execute_python and load_library.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Use after editing the wrapper — no Claude Code restart needed.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare against sibling tools like load_library or execute_python.

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