zerodom_add_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: storage_state must be a Playwright JSON file (cookies + origins), header does not support comma-repeated values so you must call again, and the 'live' identity is always available. It does not disclose edge-case behaviors like what happens on duplicate names or invalid storage_state, but the key usage behaviors are well covered.

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 purpose, then uses clean paragraph breaks for parameter details and workflow context. Every sentence earns its place — the storage_state explanation, the header limitation, the live-identity note, and the compare_identities handoff all add non-redundant value. No filler.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, workflow sequencing, and sibling relationships — nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The main gaps are edge cases (duplicate name registration behavior, storage_state validation) and persistence semantics across calls, but these are minor given the rich context already provided.

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 — and it does. storage_state is fully explained (Playwright JSON, cookies + origins, one per account), and header is explained with format and a limitation ('repeatable via comma isn't supported'). The name parameter is only implied via 'e.g. user B' rather than explicitly defined, but its role as an identity label is reasonably inferable.

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+resource: 'Register a second identity (e.g. user B) for cross-tenant IDOR testing.' This states exactly what the tool does and why it exists, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling zerodom_compare_identities by describing the workflow handoff. No ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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 gives clear workflow context: register identities first, then zerodom_compare_identities(url) consumes them. It also tells the agent when registration is NOT needed — 'The current logged-in session is always available as identity "live" without registering.' It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' formulation, but the sequencing and the live-identity shortcut provide solid usage guidance.

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