Add item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context on 'group' and 'fields' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, ordering, or what happens if the collection doesn't exist. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and uses no redundant words. It efficiently explains the tool's purpose and two key parameters without superfluous detail.

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, the description leaves 'position' and 'actor' undefined, which are important for correct invocation. The core action is clear, but the tool has 6 parameters and nested objects, so a fully complete description should cover more parameter semantics. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has gaps.

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 low (17%), so the description's clarification of 'group' as a lane/section and 'fields' as a JSON object with an example is valuable. However, 'position' and 'actor' remain unexplained, and 'collection' is only implied, not explicitly defined. The description partially compensates for the schema gaps but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 ('Add an item to a collection') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_update_item, data_move_item, and data_delete_item. It also elaborates on the 'group' and 'fields' parameters, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for adding new items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like data_update_item or data_move_item. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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