document_add_schema_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'add', without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, if it validates the property schema, what happens on conflict (e.g., overwrite or error), or if the document is auto-saved. 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness, which limits the score to 4.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what an 'object schema definition' is in the context of the document, nor does it mention behavior, error cases, or return values. The sibling list shows many similar tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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% with all 4 parameters defined, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the 'schema' parameter type and example are in the schema). No extra context is given.

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 property to an object schema definition', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like document_add_schema (adds entire schema) and document_remove_schema_property (removes property). However, it could be more precise by specifying that it adds to an existing schema.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as document_add_schema_enum or document_set_schema_type. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., schema must exist) or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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