Install / remove a module

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

Annotations only carry idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real consequence context: it tells the agent that removing wheels makes the rover immobile and that the head module drives the pan servo for the face and light sensors. It does not say whether module changes take effect immediately, whether a running program is interrupted, or what errors occur when installing an already-installed module.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb pair and resource first, followed by the enumerated values, each with just enough gloss to be actionable. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers all valid inputs and their physical consequences, which is most of what an agent needs. It falls short only on side effects of toggling a module while a program is running and on what state to expect afterwards.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the enum parameter by defining all four module values with their physical meaning. The boolean 'installed' parameter is only implied by the sentence structure (install vs remove) and is never explicitly mapped to true/false semantics.

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 pair (install/remove) against a specific resource (body module) and then enumerates the exact four valid modules with a gloss of what each one does. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like set_head, set_display, or capture_camera, which manipulate parts of a module rather than installing/removing the module itself.

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 module glosses imply when you'd reach for this (e.g. 'without them the rover cannot move'), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as 'to merely rotate the head, use set_head instead'. Usage is inferable from the enum rather than stated.

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