eqs_add_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation can add or replace, and that option_index=-1 creates a new option, which is meaningful beyond the schema. However, it does not describe side effects, save behavior, or failure semantics, leaving significant behavioral ground uncovered.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line core statement, a bullet-like list of supported values, the key option_index behavior, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 several essential aspects and links to a KB for deeper context; the presence of an output schema means return-value details are unnecessary. However, it omits the meaning of the save parameter and provides no workflow context, so an agent might still hesitate about when and how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by enumerating valid generator_type values and explaining option_index=-1 behavior, and it shows query_path via example. But save remains completely undocumented, and query_path's meaning is only inferable from the example—partial coverage at best.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add or replace an EQS option generator.' It clearly distinguishes itself from EQS siblings like eqs_add_test and eqs_create_query by naming the exact artifact being manipulated. The supported generator_type list further pins down the tool's scope.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related EQS tools like eqs_add_test, eqs_create_query, or eqs_describe_query. The example and supported values imply usage, but there is no stated context, precondition, or exclusion to help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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