add_identifier

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as whether marking an identifier as primary replaces another primary, how duplicates are handled, or what side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the resource, and the relevant identifier types without wasting words.

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?

The schema covers the parameters and the description states the core operation, which is enough for straightforward calls. However, there is no output schema and no description of behavior around optional inputs like is_primary or farm_id, so the context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already explains all five parameters. The description's parenthetical list of identifier types mirrors the enum in the schema and adds no extra meaning beyond that coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Add an identifier') and a clear resource ('to an animal'), and it enumerates the identifier types supported. This clearly communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like remove_identifier or list_identifiers to sharpen the contrast.

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 verb 'Add' implies the primary use case: attaching a new identifier to an animal. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer related tools such as remove_identifier or find_animal_by_identifier.

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