add_eqs_generator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses replace-vs-add semantics and states that an invalid option_index is checked before anything changes, implying atomic validation. It stops short of detailing save/permission behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then covers edge cases, then lists return keys. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and structure (behavior then Returns) is easy to scan.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the append/replace branching, the validation rule, and enumerates the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics not in the schema — notably that a negative option_index is an error and that validation occurs before mutation, plus the replace-versus-append interaction between option_index and generator_class. This is meaningful clarification beyond the already-complete 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?

States a specific verb (adds) and resource (a UEnvQueryGenerator subclass to a UEnvQuery option), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like add_eqs_option, remove_eqs_generator, and set_eqs_generator_properties. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Explains the conditional behavior (becomes the generator vs. replaces an existing one) and the meaning of option_index, giving clear context for when the tool appends versus overwrites. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives such as set_eqs_generator_properties or list_eqs_generator_types, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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