add_mod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only lists arguments and gives no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation (adding a mod), this lack of transparency leaves critical behavioral unknowns.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clear, front-loaded argument list. Every line contributes essential information, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently explains the action and all parameters without unnecessary verbiage.

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 simple add operation, the description covers the action and all parameter meanings well. However, it does not explicitly indicate that 'link' and 'status' are optional (though the schema shows defaults), nor does it explain what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not described). These minor gaps prevent a perfect completeness score, but the core context is adequately conveyed.

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 description provides a detailed 'Args' section that explains each parameter's meaning and context, e.g., 'printer: The ID of the printer to add the mod to' and 'status: Mod status — Planned, In Progress, Completed'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Add' and clearly defines the resource as 'a mod/upgrade to a printer'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like update_mod (which would modify an existing mod). The one-sentence purpose is direct and sufficiently differentiates the tool's function.

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 by using the verb 'Add' (e.g., when you want to add a new mod), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_mod, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but guidance is only implied, not explicitly stated.

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