Create equipment

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

Annotations offer minimal cues (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It adds two meaningful behaviors: rejecting bike-only fields on shoes and returning no ID on creation, prompting verification. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence adds crucial operational details with no filler.

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?

The description explains the main behavior and verification path, but for a 12-param tool with no output schema it leaves gaps about response format and the exact semantics of many optional parameters.

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?

With only 33% of parameters having schema descriptions, the description's note on the 'type' enum and bike-only field rejection adds some meaning, but it doesn't compensate for the 8 undocumented parameters like brand, model, notes, or is_default.

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?

Description uses the verb 'add' and names the resource ('bike or shoes') and scope ('athlete's equipment list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tp_get_equipment, tp_update_equipment, and tp_delete_equipment.

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?

Implies the use case of creating equipment without explicitly mentioning when not to use it. It does direct you to verify via tp_get_equipment afterward, offering a clear follow-up, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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