add_condition_to_spec

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses critical behavior: it 'never synthesizes' a descriptor, 'never writes to a file', defaults spec_xml to the active spec or PROSUITE_SPEC_PATH, and returns structured status. It also warns that the name 'must not already exist' and that category is only needed for multi-category specs.

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 appropriately verbose for 9 parameters and a complex preview operation. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then organizes details into a clear Args block. No extraneous fluff; every sentence contributes value.

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 tool's complexity, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains return values, side-effect-free behavior, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It even mentions how to persist the result ('ready to review and persist yourself'), fulfilling the contextual needs for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates entirely by adding semantic meaning to every parameter. For example, condition_request is explained as '{condition: method name from list_conditions, params: dict}', datasets are described as 'Feature classes/tables', and spec_xml's default behavior is fully specified. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview adding a new QualityCondition to a spec, reusing an existing descriptor.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is 'Preview only: never writes to a file' and referencing run_verification for context, making the tool's scope 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 advises to 'Call describe_spec first for valid specification/workspace/dataset names' and clearly states this is a preview that returns XML for the user to persist. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools (like preview_condition_run or run_verification) and explaining when to use them instead.

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