add_token

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the exact mutation scope: it adds a token definition and replaces only the specified line without touching other lines. It also explains that force_create bypasses duplicate detection, which is important behavioral context for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses a short numbered list to explain effects and a compact Args section for parameters. Every sentence provides useful information for correctly invoking a destructive mutation tool.

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 seven-parameter destructive tool with no schema descriptions, the definition covers purpose, scope, prerequisite usage, parameter meaning, and the risky force_create behavior. An output schema exists, so the brief return-value sentence is sufficient.

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 carries the full burden and does so well. It documents every parameter, gives examples for file, value, token_name, and preferred_token_file, specifies that line is 1-indexed, and states the valid token_type values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: convert a hardcoded value into a design token. It also explains the two concrete effects, adding a token definition and replacing exactly the specified line, which clearly distinguishes it from broader mutation tools like replace_pattern or set_token.

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 clear prerequisite by telling the agent to use list_tokens() first to find hardcoded values. It also warns that force_create should be used only for testing. It stops short of explicitly naming when to use this instead of set_token or replace_pattern, so it is strong but not fully alternative-aware.

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