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

The annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: additions are planning-only, public shares may update immediately, amounts are whole USD, discounts are fractions, and 'No securities are issued or signed.' These details help an agent understand side effects and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the immediate side-effect warning is placed second, and the unit constraints are packed into the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, this is a complex mutation with five required top-level parameters and a nested stakeholder object. The description omits required parameter roles, the versioning/idempotency workflow, confirmation token mechanics, and precise plan-limit behavior. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema carefully and still make uncertain assumptions.

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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies some units and constraints ('Amounts are whole USD and discounts are fractions') and hints at confirmation, but it does not explain expected_version, idempotency_key, confirmation_token, the relationship between shares/SAFE/note fields, or project/cap_table identifiers. This is insufficient compensation for a schema with no descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Add') and specifies the resource: 'an address-free planning stakeholder, share position, SAFE, or note.' It also names operative constraints ('within plan limits after confirmation'), which distinguishes this creation tool from cap_table.update_stakeholder and cap_table.delete_stakeholder. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like cap_table.create, cap_table.update_stakeholder, or cap_table.simulate_raise. It implies prerequisites like plan limits and confirmation, but does not explain the decision boundary between this and other cap_table tools. No exclusions or alternative-specific guidance are provided.

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