calculate_kill_mud_weight

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

The description only states the formula and parameter definitions. No annotations are provided, so the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits like computational assumptions, unit consistency checks, or potential errors (e.g., division by zero if TVD=0).

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 extremely concise, with the purpose and formula in the first line, followed by parameter definitions in a clear list. Every sentence is necessary and no word is wasted.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently explains the calculation and inputs. However, it lacks broader context about well control applicability or assumptions, but for a simple formula tool it is adequate.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter with its physical meaning and units (e.g., 'sidp_psi: Shut-in drill pipe pressure (psi)'). This adds context beyond the schema's minimal titles, covering all three parameters.

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 verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'kill mud weight', and includes the formula which differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_ecd or calculate_hydrostatic_pressure. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for well control operations or when SIDP is available. With many sibling tools, such context is missing.

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