wb_card_add_nomenclature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Add') and target ('existing card'), without mentioning validation, idempotency, effects on existing nomenclatures, permissions, or error behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. The parenthetical 'добавить размер' adds relevant clarification without unnecessary length. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an underspecified nested parameter object, the description is too sparse. To call the tool correctly, an agent would need the shape of cards_to_add items and clarity on success/failure behavior. The description provides only a high-level summary.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that imt_id refers to an existing card and cards_to_add contains the nomenclatures/sizes to add, which the schema mostly lacks. However, cards_to_add is an array of opaque objects with no structure defined, and the description does not specify required fields or formats. It partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage but not fully.

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 ('nomenclature/size to an existing card'), and identifies the targeting mechanism ('by imtID'). This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like wb_cards_create or wb_cards_update. The Russian gloss 'добавить размер' reinforces the intended operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_cards_update or wb_cards_create. The phrase 'existing card' implies a prerequisite, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool routes are provided. An agent must infer usage solely from the action name.

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