text_add_prefix_suffix

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it's a transformation tool, mentions skipping empty elements, and that it's free. However, it lacks depth on ordering, multiple prefixes/suffixes, or side effects, and redirects to describe_tool for full guidance.

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 includes unnecessary meta like 'Menu ID' and repeats the tool name. It is relatively short but has some redundancy. The redirect to describe_tool could be omitted for self-containment.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough to use it independently. It lacks details on return values, input structure, and operation specifics, relying on describe_tool for completeness.

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 input schema has no defined parameters (open object), and the description does not clarify what properties are expected for prefix, suffix, text, or scope. The baseline is low due to schema emptiness, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the input format.

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 tool adds prefixes and suffixes to text, specifying it applies to lines, words, or characters with options to skip empty elements. It distinguishes from siblings like text_add_line_numbers or text_find_replace.

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 provides context on what the tool does, implying when to use it (for adding prefixes/suffixes). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the specific operations help differentiate.

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