add_exclusion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the key side effect: import lists will stop re-adding the movie. However, it omits whether the operation is idempotent, how it handles an already-existing exclusion, any permission requirements, or the response shape. The disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 first sentence is concise and directly useful. The second sentence, however, is confusing and potentially erroneous—'add_import_exclusion' is neither this tool name nor a sibling tool—so it does not clearly earn its place. The overall length is short, but the unclear second sentence lowers the structural quality.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. But the ambiguous second sentence and the lack of any detail about error conditions, idempotency, or return behavior leave it only minimally complete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema provides: 'by TMDB id' repeats the tmdb_id property description, and 'shown in the exclusions list' is already part of the movie_title schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Exclude'), the resource ('a movie from import lists'), and the mechanism ('by TMDB id'), and explains the intended outcome. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like remove_exclusions, and the second sentence introduces an unclear reference to 'add_import_exclusion', slightly muddying the otherwise clear purpose.

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 phrase 'so lists stop re-adding it' implies the primary use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as remove_exclusions or delete_movie. The second sentence attempts an alternative but is ambiguous and fails to clearly specify a condition or workflow.

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