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

The description discloses valuable behavior beyond annotations: deterministic pass-through, the confirmed-outcomes prerequisite, the 25-competency cap, and the 409 stale-version error on source_stage. These are concrete side effects and failure conditions that the schema and annotations do not convey.

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 with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded, and every clause adds constraint or error information.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, limits, deterministic behavior, and an error condition. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 the burden. It clarifies source_stage semantics (version check, 409 on staleness) and says items are written exactly as-is, but it does not explain the many item subfields (definition, description, competency, title, details) or how they map to a competency, leaving real ambiguity.

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 the specific operation: 'Add competencies to a draft exactly as written' with the clarifying qualifier 'deterministic, no AI generation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_competencies and update_competencies without needing to open 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?

Gives clear usage context: this is for adding user-supplied competencies verbatim, and it requires confirmed outcomes before use. It implies the alternative generate_competencies when AI generation is wanted, but does not name that sibling explicitly or state exclusions such as when to use add_skills or add_questions.

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