ue_blackboard_add_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only lists parameters and examples, without mentioning side effects, duplicate key handling, error behavior, or success signaling.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a cleanly organized Args section. Every sentence and line contributes directly to understanding the tool, with no redundant information.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it misses important context such as the requirement that the blackboard already exists, potential failure modes, and what the outcome of adding a key looks like.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with concrete examples. It provides an example path for blackboard_path, an example key name, and the full list of allowed key_type values, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Aggiunge una chiave a un Blackboard Data esistente' (adds a key to an existing Blackboard Data). This specific verb-object pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_create_blackboard, which creates a new blackboard.

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 word 'esistente' implies the blackboard must already exist, providing a subtle prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or mention of related operations like ue_blackboard_info.

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