openwisp_update_floorplan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior by pairing 'Replace' with HTTP PUT, which signals full-resource replacement rather than partial update. However it says nothing about what the replacement body must contain, auth needs, or reversibility of the overwrite.

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?

Two compact fragments that front-load the action and then the transport detail, with no wasted prose. The bracketed category prefix is boilerplate but harmless.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a schema that exposes only the pk while omitting any replacement payload, the description leaves critical gaps: what fields a PUT must supply and what the caller should expect after the overwrite.

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% for the single pk parameter, so the schema already documents the identifier. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Replace a floor plan') and the HTTP PUT path makes the replace semantics unmistakable, distinguishing it from create/get/delete_floorplan siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

No statement of when to choose this replacement over other floorplan operations, nor any prerequisites or permission requirements. The only hint is the HTTP PUT notation, which is implied usage at best.

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