add_custom_doc

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

No annotations. For a mutation tool (add/update) with no output schema, the description should disclose effects: does it overwrite on duplicate id, require specific permissions, validate content, or return a confirmation? None of this is stated. 'Agrega o actualiza' hints at upsert behavior but without specifics.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded. Appropriate length for a straightforward tool.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks behavioral details, usage context, and differentiations from siblings. An agent can identify the action but lacks enough context to call it confidently in complex scenarios.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: adds or updates a technical article/guide in Anime.js v4 documentation. Distinguishes from siblings implicitly (writes to docs vs. reads/search/validate). However, no explicit sibling naming, and the object 'documentación de Anime.js v4' is somewhat broad compared to specific siblings like get_migration_guide.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or how this relates to sibling tools such as validate_anime_code or search_anime_docs. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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