chooser_add_asset_row

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 operation is a mutation ('Save the Chooser table after mutation') and describes the return value ('Structured JSON with the added asset, row index, and updated row list'). It does not detail failure modes or prerequisites, but the provided context is substantial for a simple add operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a concise args list, returns, KB reference, and a concrete example. Each section provides useful information without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a tool of moderate complexity: all parameters are explained, the return value is specified, and a KB reference provides additional details. It lacks explicit preconditions (e.g., the chooser table must exist) and does not define what a 'hard asset' is, but the example and KB link mitigate these gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description fully documents all four parameters ('chooser', 'asset', 'enabled', 'save') with meaningful explanations. This goes well beyond the schema and leaves no ambiguity about each argument's purpose.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('hard asset result row to a Chooser table'), which clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like chooser_create_table and chooser_inspect_table. It also includes an example call that reinforces the intended usage.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Add a hard asset result row to a Chooser table') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use chooser_create_table to create a table first' or when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough for a straightforward add operation, but there is no explicit 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.