aras_add_affected_item

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'adds an item' but does not explain side effects, whether it creates a relationship, what happens if the item is already affected, permission requirements, or the return value. The mutation is implied by 'Aggiunge' but the behavioral context is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target immediately. There is no wasted wording, so it earns full marks for conciseness even though more detail would be useful elsewhere.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-sentence description leaves significant gaps. An agent does not learn how to supply the item, what itemType means, whether any preconditions exist, or what the operation returns. It is too incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It indirectly hints at 'tipo' and 'changeId' via 'ECR/ECN esistente', but it says nothing about 'itemNumber' or the defaulted 'itemType' parameter. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggiunge') and a clear resource ('un elemento fra quelli impattati da una ECR/ECN esistente'), so an agent can tell it adds an affected item to an existing change. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'esistente' distinguishes it from change-creation tools. A solid, specific purpose statement.

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 'ECR/ECN esistente' implies this tool is for existing changes, not for creating them, so usage context is somewhat clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like aras_create_relationship or aras_create_change, nor does it state when not to use it. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.

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