add_citation_to_asset_control

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states returns (success, error) without detailing behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, or effects of duplicate citations. The typo 'asse' further undermines clarity.

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 of moderate length but includes irrelevant information about asset hierarchy. It could be more concise if focused on the actual citation action.

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 and 3 parameters, the description fails to accurately describe the tool's purpose (mismatch with name) and lacks essential context about citations and controls.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats parameter names with vague one-line descriptions (e.g., 'Id of the control in asset'). It does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 says 'Create a new asset with an initial control and check structure,' which contradicts the tool name 'add_citation_to_asset_control.' The parameters are about linking a citation to an existing asset control, not creating an asset. This is misleading.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'suggest_control_citations' or 'attach_rule_to_control.' The description does not clarify the context of use.

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