document_add_security_requirement

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Add a security requirement' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing requirements, requires pre-existing scheme definitions, or validates the requirement JSON). The required session parameter is not explained in the description, though the schema covers it.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to fully inform an agent. It does not explain that 'requirement' expects a JSON object with scheme names and scopes, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., security schemes must exist). Sibling tools in the same domain (e.g., 'document_add_security_scheme') are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer relationships.

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 has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the tool applies to the document or a specific operation, which reinforces the optional path/method parameters. It does not provide additional semantic details beyond 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 tool adds a security requirement to either the document or a specific operation. The verb 'Add' and resource 'security requirement' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling 'document_add_security_scheme' (which defines schemes, not applies them). However, it does not explain what a security requirement is in terms of mapping scheme names to scopes, which the input schema clarifies but the description omits.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'document_add_security_scheme' or 'document_remove_all_security_requirements'. The description implies it can target the whole document or a specific operation but lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions. Siblings are numerous but unmentioned.

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