ruddur_attach_waypoint

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: accepted placement aliases (heading, index, state, sortOrder) and the rule to omit assessmentConfig for normal waypoint payloads. Even so, it does not disclose what 'attach' does in practice (e.g., whether a placement is created or replaced) or what the response contains, so it falls short of rich transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a key capability, and the third notes the required permission. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant vocabulary or filler.

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 mutating tool with a flexible body and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps: it does not explain what the path id refers to, whether the waypoint or heading must already exist, what happens on success, or how this tool differs from placement-specific siblings. The schema and annotations carry most of the load, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to invoke this with confidence.

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 complete (100%), and the body parameter description in the schema already explains flexible top-level fields and the assessmentConfig exception. The description adds value by naming concrete placement aliases that would otherwise be hidden in free-form object fields, giving the agent a clearer idea of valid body content. It does not, however, explain the id parameter's semantics, so it is not a perfect parameter guide.

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 opens with a clear action-resource-target statement ('Attach a Waypoint to a Heading'), which is more specific than a generic 'process' and differentiates it from sibling 'create' tools at a high level. However, it leaves operational ambiguity: it does not state whether a new waypoint is created or an existing one is associated, and the meaning of the path 'id' is never clarified.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus adjacent tools like ruddur_create_waypoint or ruddur_update_waypoint_placement. The only actionable note is the scope requirement ('Requires scope: content.manage'), which is a permission constraint, not a usage condition or alternative-selection hint.

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