Add Coded Value To Domain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already tells the agent this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds nothing further: it does not say the domain must already exist, whether the workspace is a geodatabase path, whether duplicate codes are rejected or overwritten, or whether changes persist immediately.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and a front-loaded verb. It is concise but under-specified rather than well-structured; there is no additional sentence to earn 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with four required params, zero schema coverage and no annotations beyond generic hints, the description leaves critical operational context (target workspace, domain preconditions, duplicate handling) 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% and there are 4 required parameters. The description only implicitly references 'code' and 'description' and says nothing about workspace_path or domain_name, leaving half the required inputs unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair (add a code/description to a coded value domain) and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_coded_value_from_domain. However, it offers no explicit sibling differentiation or scope qualifiers beyond the name/title restatement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as alter_domain or delete_coded_value_from_domain. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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