add_alias_entry

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature with [WRITE], assigns risk=medium, states reversibility, and reveals that it captures prior entries before changing — important context for audit/undo behavior. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 efficient — a bolded one-line summary followed by Args in standard docstring format. The [WRITE] prefix and risk marker are purposeful. Some redundancy (dry_run repeated in summary and Args) is minor. Overall front-loaded and scannable.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description discloses the key safety-relevant behaviors: reversibility, prior-state capture, dry-run preview, and default target behavior. It's complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could note the return/confirmation format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It documents all four parameters: name (from list_aliases), entry (host/network/port to add), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (firewall target from config, omit for default). This provides meaningful context well beyond the bare schema.

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 '[WRITE][risk=medium] Add one entry to an alias' — a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the action. It explicitly mentions reversibility (undo removes it), which differentiates it from siblings like remove_alias_entry and establishes its scope.

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 when to use it (adding an entry to an alias) and recommends dry_run=True for preview. It references a sibling function list_aliases for getting valid names (name: Alias name from list_aliases). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it vs remove_alias_entry, but the reversibility note helps with choice.

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