set_node_elevation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses validation behavior (against EPANET, node type, unit bounds, re-parse) and the side effect that previous simulation results are invalidated. It stops short of describing the response/return format on success or failure, but the validation details provide a realistic picture of expected behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is dense but informative, covering validation requirements. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the operation, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what constraints are validated, and the side effect on simulation results. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns or error behavior, but given the validation description, an agent can infer success/failure semantics. Overall quite 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning including the reservoir/tank distinction and elevation units/bounds. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Change') and a precise resource ('elevation of a junction, reservoir, or tank'), and clarifies the special meaning for reservoirs (fixed head) and tanks (bottom elevation). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling set_* tools like set_pipe_diameter or set_junction_demand.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (changing node elevation) and the prerequisite of a loaded network, plus the follow-up action (re-run run_simulation). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling set of tools implies it is for elevation only.

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