add_speciesRegister a tracked chemical species using its name and formula in a fire-simulation project so it is included in smoke and toxicity calculations.
Add a tracked species.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Species name (e.g. CARBON DIOXIDE) | |
| formula | Yes | Chemical formula (e.g. CO2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the vague qualifier "tracked" — it does not explain duplicate behavior, required preconditions, or what state is created.
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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but it is structurally clean and concise.
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 annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully covers both required parameters, so basic invocation context exists. However, the description omits domain context such as when a species should be added, how it relates to remove_species, and what "tracked" implies in the simulation setup.
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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already present, which is the expected baseline 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?
The description states a clear verb ("Add") and resource ("tracked species"), making the basic action unambiguous. It does not differentiate this tool from other add_* siblings such as add_material or add_surface, but the core purpose is clear.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives such as remove_species. It only names the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.