set_pump_speed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It excels: it states validation against EPANET (link must exist and be a pump, bounds, re-parsing), details the side effect of appending SPEED if missing, and explicitly warns that previous simulation results are invalidated and instructs re-running run_simulation. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, then covers validation and side effects in a logical order. It is informative without being verbose. Slightly long but every clause adds necessary context, making it concise relative to the complexity covered.

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 action, validation, side effects, and a follow-up action (re-run simulation). It leaves out the return value or error handling details, but given there is no output schema, an agent might expect some indication of what the tool returns (e.g., success or updated link info). Still, for a mutation tool, the key context (invalidation and next step) is provided.

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 without additional description. The description adds minimal parameter-level insight beyond the schema; it mentions the relative speed setting and validation bounds but does not elaborate on formats or units beyond what schema already states. The schema's own parameter descriptions are thorough, so the description adds little extra value here.

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 ('Change the relative speed setting of a pump') with a specific resource ('pump in a loaded network') and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_pipe_diameter and set_valve_setting by focusing on pump speed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when to use (when you need to adjust a pump's speed) and provides a prerequisite (network must be loaded). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the association with pump-specific behavior is clear enough. The schema hint to use get_links for pump IDs is in the schema, not the main description, so the main description lacks explicit routing.

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