add_protocol

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It only states the action and target, not behavior on duplicate names, whether the protocol is persisted, or any side effects, which is inadequate 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity is so minimal that it contributes little beyond the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits context about duplicates, required and optional parameters, and expected behavior, leaving notable gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'name' or especially 'time' parameters. The purpose statement does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics, leaving the meaning of 'time' entirely unexplained.

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 ('protocol'), making the core purpose understandable. It differentiates from obvious opposites like remove_protocol but does not distinguish itself from set_protocols, leaving some ambiguity among siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose add_protocol versus set_protocols, nor does it mention any preconditions or alternatives. A tool named set_protocols likely overlaps with adding, so this ambiguity is not addressed.

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