dashy_add_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating operation ('Add') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, config file modifications, or error behavior. No information about the output or success criteria is given, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and provides essential parameter clues without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, but the description does not fully cover the input semantics. The `sid` meaning is ambiguous, and `filename` is undocumented. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps that the output schema may not fill from the agent's perspective.

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?

The description adds meaning for the `item` parameter by stating that it requires a `title` and listing common keys (title, url, icon, description, target), which is not in the schema. However, it does not explain `sid` beyond 'by index or exact name' (ambiguous whether sid holds the index/name) and completely omits `filename`. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial compensation is insufficient.

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 tool's function: 'Add a new item (tile) to a section,' with the verb 'Add', resource 'new item', and scope 'to a section.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like dashy_update_item and dashy_delete_item by specifying it creates a new item, and from dashy_add_section by targeting items within a section.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of dashy_update_item or dashy_delete_item, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does hint at usage by saying 'by index or exact name' for section identification, but this is more about the `sid` parameter than tool selection.

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