Add wheel favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local mutation. The description usefully adds that the name is validated against the catalogue, but omits duplicate handling, idempotency, and any favorites limit.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words; the validation caveat is placed inline where it matters.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering safety, the definition covers what to add and to where. Only edge-case behavior (duplicates, capacity) is missing, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the catalogue-validation constraint on 'name', which is a modest value-add over the schema baseline.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('radial-wheel favorites'), plus the accepted entity types (dance or moveset). It is distinguishable from siblings like reanim_remove_favorite and reanim_list_favorites, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative reanim_remove_favorite or reanim_list_favorites, and no stated prerequisites beyond catalogue validity.

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