alphaportal_edit_walk_radius

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the confirm gate, the dry-run return of the exact payload, and the eligibility impact. This goes beyond annotations and informs the agent of the safe preview path. It does not mention the exact return format of the dry-run, but it gives enough to understand the flow.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the 'Verified required fields' line is redundant given the schema and contains the misleading param name. Structurally, it flows well, but the error reduces its effectiveness. It is concise but not as clean as it could be.

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 description covers the essential behavior (dry-run vs confirm) and the consequence (transportation eligibility). It misses details like what the response payload looks like or how the dry-run is structured, but no output schema is provided. The main gap is the parameter name inconsistency, which could cause incorrect usage. Given the complexity (3 params, mutation), it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces a naming mismatch: it says 'Verified required fields: studentId, radius.' while the schema requires 'studentId' and 'radiusMeters'. This actively misinforms an agent constructing a call, potentially leading to a schema validation error. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter semantics and instead creates confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set a student's walk-zone radius, in meters.' It identifies the specific verb (set), resource (student's walk-zone radius), and adds the important consequence of affecting transportation eligibility. This distinguishes it from the sibling list/get tools, which are all read-only.

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 explicitly explains the confirm-gating behavior: without confirm:true it returns a dry-run, with confirm:true it executes. This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to preview changes. It does not name alternative tools, but given no sibling mutation tools exist, this is acceptable. The note about transportation eligibility implies caution.

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