xql_lookups_add_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses concurrency limitations (no concurrent edits, data may be overwritten/deleted), a rate assumption (1000 entries per 10 seconds), a 50 MB size limit, a three-minute timeout, and the behavior of unspecified fields being set to None. This goes far beyond a basic add/update statement.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and structured with paragraphs and bullet points, making it readable. It repeats the first line, and the length is notable but each additional detail (concurrency, rate, size limit, timeout, license) is essential. The minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers critical operational constraints: size limit, timeout, concurrency, rate, and license. It does not describe the request payload structure or response, but the schema provides the structure, and the description focuses on behavioral context that is otherwise 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?

The description elaborates on the `data` field and `key_fields` behavior (e.g., unspecified fields set to None, key_fields trigger updates vs inserts), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not mention the `dataset_name` parameter or the top-level `request_data` wrapper, leaving gaps for a complete understanding of the request structure.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add or update data in a lookup dataset', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like xql_lookups_remove_data and xql_lookups_get_data. The action is unambiguous and the scope is defined.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, explaining the behavior of key_fields for updates vs inserts and noting the license requirements. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the guidance on when data is updated vs appended is actionable and context-rich.

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