add_alias

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: aliases are normalized and deduplicated, and an invalid `kind` value is refused before the alias is built rather than silently dropped. This meaningfully supplements the sparse annotation set without contradicting it.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, and the `kind` explanation is cleanly separated. The enum list partially duplicates the schema, but it earns its place by adding the default and rejection behavior.

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 covers the key behavioral promise and the trickiest parameter (`kind`), and an output schema exists for return-value expectations. However, the meanings of `lang` and `script` are not addressed, and usage guidance relative to sibling tools is absent, leaving clear gaps.

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?

Only `kind` is explained: its allowed values, default of `other`, and validation behavior. The other four parameters — `person_id`, `value`, `lang`, and `script` — receive no semantics beyond their schema titles. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate substantially more.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Add a normalized-deduplicated alias to an existing person.' This is clear and the normalization/deduplication detail gives it specificity beyond a generic record tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use add_alias versus alternatives such as record_fact, set_affiliation, or merge_people. The only implied signal is the tool's name and purpose, which is not enough to route an agent correctly among many overlapping sibling tools.

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