add_class

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new class' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on failure, or if there are side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid class, how the ID relates to existing classes, what the expected outcome is, or potential error conditions. The context signals show this is a 3-parameter tool with database implications, requiring more behavioral context than provided.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (id, name, project_path) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these are needed for adding a class. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or constraints.

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 a new class') and resource ('to the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_actor' or 'add_item' by specifying 'class' as the resource type. However, it doesn't specify what kind of class (e.g., RPG character class) or database context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing project, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'update_database' or 'search_database'. There's no indication of when this operation is appropriate versus other database modifications.

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