Change the electrical project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: 'each action is one undoable step' (mitigating the destructive hint) and 'replacing the earlier run of the circuit' (spelling out what is destroyed). It also discloses the `route` return shape, which is unusual given destruction semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and every clause carries signal — no filler. However it is delivered as one dense semicolon-heavy paragraph covering five actions, which is harder to parse than the same content segmented by action; brevity is achieved at some cost to scannability.

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 21-parameter, five-action mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers every action, the conditional parameter mappings, and the destruction/undo model. Remaining gaps (permissions, failure modes, whether undo is guaranteed for every action) are minor against a rich schema and existing annotations.

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 would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter logic the schema can't express: 'a 220 V outlet makes its circuit 220 V', 'on automation points it takes standby_w, on a dimmer max_w, on a panel modules', and the ids/circuit vs pts distinction. These conditional applicability rules are genuine added meaning.

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 and resource ('Change the electrical and telecom project') and then enumerates the five concrete mutations (assign, voltage, cable, route, wifi). The resource is distinct from siblings like edit_lighting, edit_plumbing, edit_walls, so an agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

Gives strong internal routing: 'assign {ids, circuit}' vs. 'circuits {...} for the whole division', and 'with ids or circuit instead of pts it is a route', plus the fallback 'without via it takes the cheapest premise'. It even points to the `rules` topic=electrical for surface wiring constraints. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or sibling alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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