addAgent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a write operation ('Add') without detailing side effects, idempotency, error handling, or constraints like duplicate email rejection. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices substance for brevity. A slightly longer description with key context would improve usability without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what happens after addition, return values, and error scenarios. The current description leaves the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior incomplete.

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%, and each parameter has a basic description (e.g., 'Agent email address'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding of parameter interactions or constraints.

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 specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new agent profile'), making the tool's function clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'addAgentTag' or 'addOffice' which target different resources. However, it could be improved by briefly explaining what an agent profile encompasses.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for adding an agent (e.g., required permissions, uniqueness constraints on email).

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