mmar_create_attribute_for_class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose input requirements (attribute_data must include certain fields, and attribute_type must reference an existing AttributeType), but it omits behavioral details such as session/auth needs, failure modes, return value, or any side effects beyond creating an attribute. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists the required data fields. It is front-loaded, with no filler, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 2-parameter create tool, the description plus schema covers the required inputs and the existence of the AttributeType. However, there is no output schema, no mention of return value, error handling, or session requirements. The description is adequate but has clear gaps around the full context of 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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description mostly repeats the schema's attribute_data structure, adding only the clarification that the attribute_type must reference an existing AttributeType. This adds marginal value over the schema, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a new attribute to an existing class.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from the sibling mmar_create_attribute_for_scene_type by explicitly targeting existing classes.

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 'to an existing class' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mmar_create_attribute_for_scene_type. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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