add_canned_service_part

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, and side conditions. It only states what the tool does, not whether it modifies the template, what happens on duplicate parts, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that omits unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the key action and object, making it easy to parse quickly. No redundant information is present.

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?

The tool is a straightforward CRUD operation, so the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks information about the return value or any error conditions, and there is no output schema. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate—it covers the essential purpose but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all eight parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions, so the baseline score applies. Parameters like 'retailCostCents' and 'wholesaleCostCents' are already clearly explained in the 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the object ('a part line item to an existing canned service template'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fee or labor additions. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_canned_service_fee or add_canned_service_labor. The operation name itself is self-explanatory, but the description offers no explicit selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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