dispatcher_add

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

The description reveals one side effect (optional MI ds_reload), which is useful. However, without annotations, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether destinations are unique, permissions needed, or what happens on duplicate entries. The disclosure is partial.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value: the action, resource, and optional trigger are all included efficiently.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the existence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter semantics, prerequisites, or return values, despite having an output schema. The agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain what 'destination', 'setid', 'flags', etc. represent, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('new dispatcher destination'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'dispatcher_remove' and 'dispatcher_update' by specifying the operation. The mention of optionally triggering an MI reload adds specificity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dispatcher_update or dispatcher_remove). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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