amend_factory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it discloses operation ordering (add, then drop, then prune_missing), that unnamed anchors are left untouched even if their ids are gone, that dropping the last machine is refused, and what prune_missing clears. It stops short of stating whether the change is destructive/reversible, whether it needs write permissions, or what the result looks like.

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 core purpose leads in the first sentence, followed by the rationale and the operation-ordering rules. Dense and mostly earned, though the second sentence's framing of the name_factory problem is slightly verbose for the information it delivers.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central mechanics well but leaves several parameters (name, world, notes, dry_run, save) and the return/error surface unexplained. Adequate, with visible gaps.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters. The description explains the add/drop grammar, the machine:<instance> form, and prune_missing behavior, and implies the save semantics ('ids this save no longer has'), but name, world, notes, and dry_run receive no explanation in either the description or the schema.

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: add or drop individual machines on a label without re-anchoring the rest. It explicitly contrasts with name_factory (re-anchors) and forget_factory (deletes the label), so an agent can place it within the sibling set without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative name_factory and the condition that selects this tool instead (fixing one wrongly-included machine rather than re-selecting the whole factory), and routes label deletion to forget_factory. Both 'when to use' and 'when not to use' are covered.

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