add_sample_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the sample must exist, if duplicates are allowed, or if the operation is reversible. 'Add' suggests mutation but boundaries are unclear.

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 concise, using a docstring format with a one-line summary and a list of parameters. No extraneous text, but could be more succinct by omitting the repeated parameter structure.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites, and distinction from siblings like 'associate_sample_with_run' or 'clear_samples_for_run'.

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?

The description provides brief explanations for all 4 parameters (e.g., 'project_id: The project identifier'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only information. However, the 'attributes' parameter is vague ('Optional sample attributes') given its complex type.

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 'Add a sample to a project' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'associate_sample_with_run', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions for use. The description only lists parameters without context for selection.

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