name_factory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the label uses stable machine instance IDs, survives saves and moves, and that re-calling re-anchors. This transparently indicates a mutating operation (creating/updating a persistent label) without requiring inferences from the schema.

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 two focused sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral details about persistence and re-anchoring. No fluff or redundant information is present, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 core concept is well explained, but with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out critical details about what happens on first use vs. subsequent uses, the meaning of 'save', 'world', 'dry_run', and the exact behavior of 'split' and 'expand' (though partly covered in schema). It is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but not sufficient for parameter-level usage.

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 38%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters (name, save, world, dry_run, etc.). However, it only references 'the current selection' and provides no meaning for these parameters. The schema's descriptions for 'select', 'split', and 'expand' exist, but the remaining parameters are not explained anywhere.

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 tool's core function: 'Name a set of machines and persist it for this world.' This is a specific verb-object pairing that distinguishes it from related tools like 'forget_factory' and 'list_factories'. The added detail about storing machine instance IDs further clarifies its unique role as a persistent labeling mechanism.

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 usage through persistence and re-anchoring behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. It mentions that calling again re-anchors to the current selection, which is a useful contextual hint, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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