smartobject_add_slot

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

Since annotations are absent, the description is responsible for behavior disclosure. It notes that the tool mutates the asset ('Save the asset after mutation') and describes the return payload including 'tag warnings,' which hints at possible validation issues. However, it does not explain error behavior, idempotency, or side effects beyond saving, leaving gaps.

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 purpose statement, a parameter list with brief descriptions, a returns clause, a KB reference, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded and every section serves a clear function, with no redundant content.

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 tool is a mutation with eight parameters, and the description covers the core action, parameter meanings, returns, and a realistic example. It does not address prerequisites or error cases, and it fails to differentiate use from sibling tools, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter documentation. It does list all eight parameters and supplies basic descriptions, including vector formats for offset and rotation. Still, details like units, coordinate space, rotation order, and the meaning of tag parameters are missing, so the compensation is only partial.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource phrase: 'Add a slot to a SmartObject definition.' This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like smartobject_create_definition and smartobject_inspect_definition, and the example reinforces the intended target.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., the SmartObject definition must already exist). The usage is only implicitly inferred from the verb 'add', which is not enough.

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