eqs_add_test

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 adds useful context (valid test_type values, the prerequisite option) but doesn't disclose what happens if the option doesn't exist, whether tests append or replace, or the effect of the save flag. The mutation semantics are only partially transparent.

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 front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The supported-value list, prerequisite note, KB reference, and example each serve a distinct purpose. No redundant verbiage, though the KB line is slightly tangential.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials (action, valid values, prerequisite, path format) but leaves behavioral gaps. The meaning of option_index is critically unexplained—the description says 'existing option' but not how an agent selects among multiple options. Output schema existence mitigates return-value concerns.

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 does: it lists all valid test_type values (distance, pathfinding, dot, trace) which the schema omits entirely, and the example demonstrates the query_path format. However, option_index and save semantics remain unexplained, leaving two parameters under-documented.

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 opening sentence 'Add an EQS test to an existing option' uses a specific verb, resource, and target, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like eqs_add_generator (which creates options) and eqs_create_query (which creates queries). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from related EQS tools.

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 explicitly names the prerequisite sibling (eqs_add_generator) and states the required sequencing: 'Create or choose an option with eqs_add_generator first.' This gives clear operational context, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or discuss alternatives beyond the single prerequisite.

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