modify_equipment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing mutation behavior. It does mention cable-path recalculation, but omits the significant destructive default in the schema (remove_connected_cables=true means attached cables are disconnected on remove), and says nothing about reversibility or required preconditions.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the operation set and the side effect both front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not state what is returned, whether the operation is undoable via undo_redo, or that removal disconnects cables by default. An agent could call it correctly on the happy path but could easily trigger unintended cable deletion.

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 baseline is 3. The description only echoes the action enum values and adds no meaning about parameter interactions, such as which fields apply to which action or how the aliases (new_hostname/face/u_position) relate to their base fields.

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 names three specific verbs (move, rename, remove) against a specific resource (an existing mounted device instance) and adds the side effect of recalculating 3D cable paths. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from mount_equipment, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb list: use it when a device is already mounted and needs to be repositioned, renamed, or taken out. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to adjacent tools such as disconnect_cables, unmount, or undo_redo.

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