triz_effect_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the return contents (checked model, added carriers, replayable rewrite, citations/conditions) and the key caveat that behavior and resource rows are merely caller declarations with no inferred physical sufficiency. It does not describe validation failures, permission/auth needs, or what exactly the replacement destroys beyond the supplier wire.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action and then state the return and the non-inference caveat. No filler, though the caveat sentence is somewhat dense and could be split for scanability.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose and the critical 'declarations only, no sufficiency inference' nuance. It leaves large gaps on how intermediate carriers/layers and declarations interact with the chain, which an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 low at 45%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the from/to endpoints as existing ports and replace_wire as an explicit supplier replacement, but says nothing about declarations, flows, intermediate_layers, intermediate_carriers, polarity, or conditions, leaving several of the 11 parameters undocumented here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Insert a selected typed effect chain between existing output/input ports' — and adds a distinguishing detail ('explicit replacement of an existing supplier'). It implies a contrast with the chain-selection siblings (triz_effect_chains, triz_effect_setup) but never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied by the phrase 'selected typed effect chain', suggesting this runs after a chain has been chosen elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to triz_effect_setup or triz_implementations, leaving the choice among effect tools unstated.

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