Label an executor (renames its assigned object)

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the exact command sent, the blast radius of the mutation (renames the object in its pool and on every other executor it is assigned to), preconditions checked before sending, that selection and programmer are untouched and no playback keyword is emitted, exactly what verify reads back, and that mutations are serialised but not isolated from other clients.

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 the action and its real meaning, and every sentence carries information (side effects, preconditions, verify scope, concurrency). The middle sentences are dense run-ons with nested parentheses, so it is efficient rather than elegant.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers side effects, failure modes, verification, and concurrency well. The notable remaining gap is that it never describes what is returned on success or failure, which is the one thing an unannotated, schema-less-return tool would still benefit from.

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 the schema already documents each parameter; the description still adds value by giving the addressing notation ('Page <p>.<e>'), the literal command with the label interpolated, and the semantics of verify's readback versus what is not verified. The data_pool parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, which keeps it below a 5.

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, resource, and target address ('Label the object assigned to the executor at Page <p>.<e>') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious semantics: on grandMA3 2.5.1 this RENAMES THE ASSIGNED SEQUENCE, not the executor. That distinguishes it from siblings like gma3_configure_executor or gma3_assign_tag without needing the 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?

Usage is implied strongly by the side-effect explanation and by the explicit failure conditions ('fails before sending anything when the page does not exist or the executor is empty'), which tells the agent when the call will no-op. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. gma3_assign_tag, gma3_configure_executor, gma3_set_property) or says when a different route should be used instead, which matters given a very crowded sibling set.

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