add_freetext_signup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important trait — the call is preview-only unless confirm=true, i.e. a dry-run by default — but says nothing about required permissions, what happens on failure, or what the response contains for a mutating 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the purpose and an illustrative example come first, then the crucial preview caveat. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, an example, and the dry-run default but omits date formatting, what field_id refers to in the domain, and any error/return behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm flag's effect explicitly and loosely grounds field_id (the free-text field) and text (the example string), but leaves the date parameter's expected format entirely unspecified.

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 — adding a free-text line into a day's free-text field — and reinforces it with a concrete example ('un vol d'initiation « M. Dupont 15h 30 min »'). An agent can distinguish this from a normal signup, though the description never names its closest siblings (add_signup, add_freetext_signups_bulk) to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the sibling tools (add_signup, add_freetext_signups_bulk, update_signup) are referenced as alternatives. The example implies a use case but the agent must infer the choice between this and a regular signup.

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