add_entity_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral detail beyond the schema by explaining that a parent 'collapses onto a basic type' and that aliases are optional. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether adding an entity type can affect existing ontology data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage condition before compactly covering naming and optional parameters. Every phrase earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to do substantial work. It provides the core purpose and routing, but leaves out the dataset parameter, potential side effects, and what happens after the entity type is added. This is not complete enough for a mutation tool with no structured annotations to fall back on.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for name (PascalCase), parent (collapses onto a basic type), and aliases (optional). However, it omits the dataset parameter entirely and does not explain the required description parameter, leaving two of five parameters without added meaning.

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 an entity type') and the exact resource, with a specific scoping condition ('when nothing in describe_ontology fits'). It also provides the naming convention (PascalCase) and distinguishes itself from the sibling describe_ontology tool.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (describe_ontology) and gives the condition for choosing this tool over it: use only when nothing in describe_ontology fits. This is clear when-to-use guidance that leaves little to inference.

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