document_add_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic mutation ('Add') without detailing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing examples), error conditions (e.g., invalid node path), or expected response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 is front-loaded with the key verb and target. No extraneous words or repetition.

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?

Given the complexity of OpenAPI document manipulation and the large sibling list, the description lacks context about what a 'named example' is, how it relates to other example tools (e.g., document_list_examples, document_remove_example_definition), and what constitutes a valid node path. The description is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, and the schema includes descriptions for all 6 parameters. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like 'value' and 'nodePath' remain minimally described, and the description does not clarify formatting or usage conventions.

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 a named example') and the target resource ('media type, parameter, or header') with version context ('OpenAPI 3.x'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like document_add_example_definition by specifying the target is an inline example rather than a reusable definition.

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 usage for adding examples to specific node types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like document_add_example_definition or document_add_schema. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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