Upsert capacity for one age band on a daycare. Age bands: infant, toddler, twos, threes, fours, prek, kindergarten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| age_band | Yes | ||
| daycare_id | Yes | ||
| total_slots | Yes | ||
| waitlist_count | No | ||
| current_enrollment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'upsert' but doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing capacity, requires specific permissions, or affects waitlist/enrollment. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 concise (two sentences) but under-specified. It front-loads the action but omits necessary detail about parameters and behavior. It is not wasteful but is too brief for the tool's complexity.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain return values, error handling, or partial update behavior, making it incomplete for reliable use.
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 explain parameters. It only lists age bands but does not clarify the meaning or usage of notes, total_slots, waitlist_count, or current_enrollment. The schema constraints are present but their purpose is undocmented.
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 action ('Upsert capacity for one age band') and the resource ('on a daycare'), listing all valid age bands. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like daycare_capacity (likely read-only) and org_update_program_capacity (different context).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as daycare_capacity for reading capacity or org_update_program_capacity for program capacity. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
