pennylane_add_dossier

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine traits beyond the annotations: the token is validated against the /me endpoint before insertion, and the first dossier is auto-activated. It does not spell out duplicate-creation or error behavior, but the two disclosed traits are meaningful extras.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by behavioral notes. Nothing is padded, though the auto-activation sentence could be seen as a secondary detail rather than core purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers token validation and first-dossier activation, which are the non-obvious behaviors. It omits what happens for subsequent dossiers and any error conditions, leaving a modest gap for a mutation tool.

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 all four parameters (slug, name, notes, token) are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly touches the token parameter via the /me verification note and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Ajoute un nouveau dossier comptable à la configuration.' An agent can immediately tell this creates a dossier. It stops short of naming sibling operations (remove/switch/list_dossier), but the additive verb makes the distinction reasonably clear on its own.

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 on when to use this versus pennylane_switch_dossier, pennylane_list_dossiers, or pennylane_current_dossier, and no prerequisites stated. The note about the first dossier becoming active is operational context, not usage routing. An agent gets no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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