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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: existing identical patterns are skipped (non-destructive to duplicates) and each pattern must contain exactly one {locale} and at most one {namespace}. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The primary action and target are front-loaded, and the constraint on pattern content is presented efficiently. 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?

Given an output schema exists and the parameter schema is detailed, the description covers the core action and key constraint but omits details like behavior on invalid input, handling of partial failures, or how patterns interact with existing ones (beyond skipping duplicates). For a tool with two parameters and moderate complexity, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It clarifies the expected format of the 'pattern' field (placeholders for locale and namespace) but does not explain 'repositoryId', 'fileFormat', or 'options'. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Add' with a concrete resource 'locale path patterns' and identifies the target as 'connected repository'. This clearly differentiates from siblings like connect_repository or set_project_context, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description states the action is additive ('Add locale path patterns') and implies it applies to an already-connected repository, providing contextual usage. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over similar tools.

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