add_attacker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses side effects (new version), backend LLM reasoning for factor decomposition, and error conditions. This is transparent beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 relatively concise at ~90 words but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Mirror of add_asset semantics' and then detailing outcomes). It is front-loaded with the main 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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, side effects, error outcomes, and behavioral logic. It is adequately complete for a create 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 coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters described). The description mentions 'identity-bearing fields (capability, position, archetype, trust_boundary_ids)' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Add a new attacker to a threat model') and key side effect ('Creates a new version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_attacker, remove_attacker, and add_asset.

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 mentions it mirrors add_asset semantics and outlines three possible outcomes (normal create, auto-restore, similar-rejection) plus error codes (503, 502). This provides context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives.

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