add_rotation

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 does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the tool name: calling it with an existing name replaces rather than errors, which matters for an agent reasoning about side effects. It discloses nothing about permissions, validation, or atomicity, so the burden is only partly met.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the operation verb front-loaded. The brevity is not wasteful, but it shades into under-specification: the one clause present is load-bearing while the parameter contract is left entirely unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here, but that is the only relief. With no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a terse non-English description, an agent lacks enough to invoke this mutation correctly or predict its effect on an existing rotation of the same name.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured data. The description only hints at the name parameter via "per nome" and says nothing about the entries array (its format, ordering, or element grammar). For a two-parameter required tool at 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

States a verb+resource ("Aggiunge... un profilo di rotazione") and adds an upsert qualifier ("o sostituisce per nome"), so the operation is identifiable. However, it gives no differentiation from the rotation siblings (list_rotations, remove_rotation) and "profilo di rotazione" is not self-explanatory without external context. Vague-but-decodable rather than specific.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_rotations or remove_rotation. The parenthetical upsert clause implies the tool is the way to create-or-overwrite, but that is inference, not stated guidance.

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