Metis — Reading Stack Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is an upsert (does passing an existing title/url update instead of duplicating?), whether item_id is required to change state, what the legal state values are, or whether anything is destroyed or overwritten. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than precision — the dual-mode behavior (create vs. state change) is compressed into one vague clause, leaving the reader to infer the actual contract.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Everything else is missing: with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, an agent has no guidance on the state machine, the upsert semantics, or parameter roles. The description is far too thin for a mutate-and-add tool of this shape.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to a 'state' parameter without enumerating values (schema merely defaults it to 'later'), and never mentions kind, tags, url, or item_id — notably not explaining that item_id is presumably what selects the record to mutate. Only 'title' is implicitly referenced by 'something'.

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 gives a verb+resource ('put something in the reading stack') and adds a second mode ('change what state it is in'), which is more than a tautology. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling reading_stack_show, and 'something' is left undefined rather than naming an article/link/item. An agent can guess the domain but not the exact object being added.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus reading_stack_show (read) or any library-tracking tool, and no prerequisites or conditions. The second clause hints that the tool also handles state transitions, but it never says when to prefer a state change over a fresh add. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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