add_driver

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden and does well: it discloses that it writes a WinISD-compatible .wdr via upstream's exporter, makes the driver searchable immediately, and returns the library file name. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the core side effects and return contract are explicit.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and return value. No filler or repetition of schema fields. Front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to quickly assess relevance.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main contract but leaves out edge-case behavior such as duplicate names, overwrites, or validation of the minimal required parameters. The return value is included, which helps, but the description could be more complete for a tool with this many inputs.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds 'T/S params (friendly units)' and the return file name. It does not explain units or meaning for under-described fields like Qes, Qms, and Qts, though those are standard domain terms. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('custom driver to the library') and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_drivers and get_driver by stating it creates new entries and writes a WinISD-compatible file. It also states the immediate side effect of searchability and the return value. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly sets the context: use this when adding a custom driver from T/S parameters, after which it becomes searchable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intent is clear enough relative to the sibling tools that it is not a search, design, or simulation operation. A small exclusion note would push this to a 5.

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