QuantConnect

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action, such as permission requirements, rate limits, or effects on existing collaborators. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse immediately.

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 (mutation with permissions), annotations cover safety (idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on collaboration roles, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for full understanding.

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 description provides no parameter details. The schema fully documents all required parameters (projectId, collaboratorUserId, collaborationLiveControl, collaborationWrite) with descriptions and examples, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('collaborator to a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'delete_project_collaborator', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_project_collaborator' or 'delete_project_collaborator'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.

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