add_check_to_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new control and attaches a check to it, which implies a write operation, but does not specify permissions, idempotency, or side effects like what happens if the parent control doesn't exist.

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 concise and well-structured with separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal but sufficient text, earning its length.

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 no annotations, the description covers the return values (success, error) and the basic behavior. However, it could include more context about error conditions, duplicate checks, or required permissions. Still, it provides a solid foundation for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section adds context for each parameter (e.g., 'parentControlId' is described as the parent control under which the check will be added), which goes beyond the basic type definitions in 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 action: 'Add a new control and a new check to an asset under a specified parent control.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resources (asset, control, check), distinguishing it from siblings like create_asset_and_check which creates the asset itself.

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 provides a clear purpose but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The context with siblings is not leveraged to differentiate use cases.

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