resource_supplement_add

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is already structured. The description adds useful semantics about what a supplement entry represents, but it does not disclose what the 'destructive' aspect means for an add operation (e.g., whether it overrides an existing supplement or affects scan output), nor where the entry persists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and the resource come first, followed by the clarification and examples in parentheses. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation tool carrying 8 parameters, the description covers the 'what' but not the effect: no word on persistence, whether the entry must be revalidated, or how it interacts with resource_supplement_list/remove and resource_validate. Adequate as a minimum, incomplete for a write tool in a family of similar resource_* tools.

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 100% (8 params, all documented, including defaults and the source/target distinction), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only clarifies the concept of the source text ('the runtime-looked-up string'), adding marginal value beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ('declare/add a supplement entry') and clarifies the entry's purpose — text that must also be translated, with concrete examples (speaker names, UI strings embedded in code). However, it never distinguishes a 'supplement entry' from the sibling concepts resource_term_add or resource_style_add, so an agent cannot tell when this resource type is the right one to add.

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 phrase 'this text also needs translating' implies the context of use — supplementary strings not picked up by scanning — and the examples give a hint of the cases meant. But there is no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative tools (resource_term_add, resource_supplement_list/remove) the agent should consider.

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