remove_tank

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the cascade removal of attached pipes, the EPANET engine validation steps (re-parse, node/link count checks, solvability requirement), and the fail-closed behavior on dangling references. This is exceptionally transparent about both expected outcomes and failure modes.

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 two sentences but packs essential information: the core action and a dense but relevant explanation of validation and failure conditions. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 complexity (cascade deletion, engine validation, fail-closed logic) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, side effects, validation guarantees, and rejection conditions. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke and interpret the tool is missing.

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%, and the tankId parameter description repeats the tool-level description, adding no new information. The networkId parameter is briefly described as returning from load_network, which is concise but sufficient. Since the schema already documents parameters adequately, the tool description adds marginal value beyond it, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('storage tank and every pipe attached to it'), and explicitly positions it as 'the inverse of add_tank', which distinguishes it from the sibling add_tank. This gives an agent immediate understanding of the tool's function and scope.

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 provides clear context by naming it as the inverse of add_tank, implying it should be used to undo an add_tank operation. It also describes the fail-closed behavior when controls/rules reference the tank, which is an important usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used, though no obvious direct alternative exists among siblings.

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