add_alias_entry

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond them — reversibility via undo, the fact that prior entries are captured, the medium risk rating, and the dry_run preview path. The only mild tension is calling the operation 'reversible' while destructiveHint=true, but appending an entry to a list is genuinely a mutation, so this reads as nuance rather than 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?

Front-loaded tags give the safety and risk profile before any prose, followed by two short sentences on reversibility and preview. The Args block is compact and each line carries information not present in the schema titles.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, reversibility, undo path, dry-run preview, and every parameter. It is close to self-sufficient; only target resolution details and any post-write verification step are absent.

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 full burden, and it documents all four parameters: name (with its source tool), entry, dry_run, and target (including the omit-for-default behavior). The compensation is solid, though entry's description is brief and target could say more about where config values come from.

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 states a specific verb and resource — add one entry to an alias — and qualifies it with [WRITE][risk=medium], which orients the agent immediately. It implicitly distinguishes itself from remove_alias_entry through the 'add one entry' framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete operational context: capture of prior entries before the change, dry_run=True for preview, and it points to list_aliases as the source of valid names, which is a real routing hint. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the preview and undo paths cover the main decision points.

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