Add competitor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds little beyond 'Add' implying a mutation. It doesn't note idempotency behavior, duplicate handling, or label uniqueness despite having an idempotency_key parameter.

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?

Single concise sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action. Could arguably add a bit more given the two undocumented params, but for its length it's efficiently written.

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 mutation tool with no annotations describing side effects, no output schema, and 50% param coverage, the description is thin. It doesn't address duplication behavior despite an idempotency_key, what response is returned, or how it relates to list_competitors/remove_competitor workflow. Sibling tools suggest a competitor workflow the description fails to contextualize.

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 50% — the domain and project_id parameters have descriptions while label and idempotency_key do not (2 of 4 undocumented). The description mentions 'tracked competitor domain' and 'project' but adds no meaning beyond schema. With partial coverage, the description could compensate for the undocumented label and idempotency_key but doesn't.

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 'Add a tracked competitor domain to a project' uses a specific verb (Add) plus resource (competitor domain) and scoping (to a project). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_competitors and remove_competitor.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. With siblings list_competitors and remove_competitor, there is no guidance on when adding vs removing/list is appropriate, nor whether a project must exist first or if there are limits on competitor count per project.

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