annotateIgnoreUnitTest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the preview/write workflow and file types, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file overwrite, rollback, permissions, error behavior). Partial transparency with gaps.

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?

Two sentences, 37 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with action and file type, immediately followed by usage pattern. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers core functionality (insert annotation, preview/write) and file type. However, lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, and any formatting constraints. For a mutation tool with no output schema, additional completeness would be beneficial.

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 has 25% coverage (only reason has description). Description adds value by explaining the workflow for 'confirmed' and implicitly covers sourceFile and methodName. It does not repeat schema details for reason but provides context beyond the schema for the two-step process.

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 inserts @IgnoreUnitTest before a method in .plsql/.plsvc files. It specifies the action (insert), the target (method before), and the file type. This distinguishes it from siblings like checkUnitTestability, generateUnitTest, etc.

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?

Explicitly provides a two-step usage pattern: call with confirmed=false first to preview, then confirmed=true to write. This is clear guidance on how to use the tool safely. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

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