coronium_replace_modem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the subscription transfer ('you keep the same expiry') and the existing-customer auth requirement. However, it does not detail side effects like deactivation of the old modem or potential costs. This is moderate transparency, missing some behavioral specifics.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. All sentences add meaningful information about usage, effects, and requirements.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, simple operation), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, subscription effect, and auth. It lacks details about the return value, but the absence of an output schema reduces that burden. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds the context of 'same country/tariff' which aligns with the same_country param, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Swap a broken/dead modem for a working one'. It specifies the resource (modem) and the action (replace), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_modem or rotate_modem by focusing on replacement due to failure.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'Used when a modem has consecutive ping failures or won't rotate.' This gives clear guidance on when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be a minor improvement.

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