mount_equipment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the bulk of disclosure. Saying it 'runs the 5-stage validation engine' usefully signals the call may be rejected, but it never says what is validated, whether the mount is atomic on partial failure, or what state is left behind after a failed stage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the actions first, then the validation side effect. No padding, though the '5-stage' detail is a teaser that earns its place only if the stages are explained elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and flags that validation runs. What is missing is failure/state behavior and the mutual exclusivity of the two mounting targets, which matters because 7 parameters must be supplied with 100% schema coverage but no cross-parameter guidance.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only adds the conceptual mapping of 'rack unit' to u_position and 'modular carrier slot' to parent_carrier_id/slot_id, with no conflict rules (e.g., that u_position and slot_id are mutually exclusive targets).

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?

States a specific verb (mount) and resource (device onto a rack unit or carrier slot), plus the two mounting modes. It is clearly distinct from modify_equipment and init_rack, though it never names a sibling to route agents away from an update path.

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 only implied: mount when instantiate-ing a new device from a blueprint, and the choice between rack-unit vs. carrier-slot mounting is hinted at. There is no explicit when-not, no prerequisites (e.g., blueprint/parent carrier must already exist), and no pointer to modify_equipment for changing an existing instance.

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