anon_post_stages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real value: the required project:manage permission, the append-to-end default when order is omitted, and the return shape. The only caption worth noting is that the description frames this as purely additive while destructiveHint=true suggests a stronger warning profile, but this is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by permission, default behavior, return shape, and endpoint. The literal `POST /api/projects/{id}/stages` line is somewhat redundant given the tool name and schema, but overall the text is tight and every other sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return shape matches GET. Combined with the permission requirement, the absent projectId, and the order default, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the exact response fields remain unspecified.

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 the nested body, so the description must compensate. It explains the optional order parameter's default behavior (appended to end if omitted) and clarifies that projectId is NOT needed because the project is derived from the API key — meaningful semantics the schema does not convey. Only the name field is left self-evident rather than explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (新增项目阶段 / add a project stage) in the first clause, which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like anon_patch_stages_stage_id, anon_patch_stages_reorder, and anon_delete_stages_stage_id. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a prerequisite (需 project:manage 权限) and a default-behavior note, which is useful context for deciding whether the call will succeed. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the update/reorder siblings, nor any exclusion conditions; usage is only implied.

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