add_machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It explains the two-unit knob system, auto_connect behavior, and distribution options. However, it lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or preconditions (e.g., whether a machine with the same name can exist). The coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a usage note, a units explanation, and a detailed arg list. It is concise yet thorough, with every sentence adding value. The front-loading of key information aids quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters and key behaviors. It lacks some higher-level context (e.g., how the machine integrates into the network), but the output schema mitigates the need for return value documentation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description fully compensates. For each parameter, it adds meaningful context: for auto_connect, it explains when to set False; for deviation_unit, it explains inheritance; for distribution, it lists valid values. This goes well beyond the schema's type information.

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 'Add a Machine (Server) pattern with multiple processing channels', specifying a concrete verb ('Add'), a resource ('Machine pattern'), and a distinguishing feature ('multiple processing channels'). This helps differentiate from sibling tools like add_blocking_machine or add_preemptive_machine.

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 provides a general usage context ('Use this for processing stations like machines, servers, workstations') and a specific note about auto_connect for parallel machines, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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