add_asset_requirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden; it does disclose the target file and the exact row template that gets appended, which is real behavioral value. It omits what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether existing rows are touched, and whether req_id collisions are rejected or overwritten.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the mutation and destination, with the row format shown inline where it matters. Nothing wasted, nothing padded.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across 5 parameters, the description is adequate but not complete: the `project` parameter and file-creation/duplicate handling are unaddressed, leaving an agent to guess at call correctness.

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%, so the description must compensate. The row template implicitly maps req_id, kind, target_path and description to their slots, but the `project` parameter (default 'default') is never mentioned, and no semantics are given for req_id format or target_path expectations.

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?

A specific verb ('Add') plus resource ('asset requirement row') and an explicit destination (workspace/ASSET_REQUIREMENTS.md), with the downstream motivation ('so Forge can generate it'). It distinguishes itself naturally from list_asset_requirements and fulfill_asset_requirements, but never explicitly contrasts with the closely related fulfill sibling.

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 implies a workflow (record a requirement so Forge can generate it later) but gives no explicit trigger for when to call this instead of fulfill_asset_requirements or write_workspace_doc. No prerequisites, no exclusions, nothing about idempotency or duplicate req_ids.

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