assign_bus_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing names), error handling for out-of-range buses, or idempotency. Only the basic action and an example are given.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and an example, earning its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information on behavior like overwrite policy or error conditions. For a simple tool, it is adequate but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description compensates by adding meaning: it specifies the bus range (1-6) and provides an example of the name ('Drummer'). This adds value beyond the raw schema types, though it could detail constraints on the name string.

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 ('Give a bus (1-6) a symbolic name') with a concrete example. It specifies the resource (bus) and the range (1-6), distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_channel_name which handle channels.

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 implies usage for naming buses but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternatives, or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative advice.

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