Add To Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, which the description supports by stating it creates records. It provides the HTTP 201 response code and API endpoint, adding value beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences and lists required parameters and endpoint details, making it reasonably concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose. A minor redundancy ('create a new Directory records' appears twice) slightly reduces conciseness.

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 simple add operation, the description covers the purpose and required parameters. It lacks explanation of the 'view' parameter's effect, though the schema covers it. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the return object. Overall, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond listing required parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 adds a vendor to a project from the Company Directory, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_company_user_to_project. However, the phrase 'create a new Directory records' is slightly redundant and could cause confusion.

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 usage for adding vendors to projects but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It lacks exclusionary guidance, e.g., that users should use add_company_user_to_project. Without naming alternatives, the agent may not know the best tool for different entity types.

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