add_canned_service_subcontract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states only that a subcontract line item is added, but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, validation requirements, failure modes, or whether the canned service must already exist.

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 with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is well structured and immediately communicates the core purpose.

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 with 8 parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens when the subcontract is added, how fields like quantity or unitCostCents interact, what 'taxableValueType' means, or what the caller should expect after invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and some properties like 'taxableValueType' remain vague, but the schema does provide basic one-line descriptions for each parameter.

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'), the object ('a subcontract line item'), and the target ('an existing canned service template'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like add_canned_service_labor, add_canned_service_part, and add_canned_service_tire.

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 when to use the tool: when adding a subcontract to a canned service. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_canned_service_subcontract or remove_canned_service_subcontract, so the guidance is only 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.