faf_human_add

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation without destruction. The description adds 'Non-interactive for MCP', clarifying its intended use case. However, it fails to disclose important behaviors like side effects on session state (path parameter sets session context) or whether fields can be overwritten. The description adds some value beyond annotations but not much.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes unnecessary emojis but still remains concise. Every word serves a purpose, though the 'Non-interactive for MCP' part could be integrated more naturally. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain return values or confirm success. It also fails to mention that the path parameter sets session context for subsequent calls, which is a key behavioral detail. With multiple sibling tools, more context about how this fits into the workflow would help, but is missing. The description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'human_context field' which groups the enum values, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The description could have clarified the relationship between field values or the path's session effect, but it doesn't.

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 human_context field with specific W-fields (who/what/why/where/when/how), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the 'human_context' domain, though siblings like faf_context exist. The purpose is clear but could be more precise by noting the path parameter's role.

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 mentions 'Non-interactive for MCP' hinting at usage context, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use faf_human_add vs faf_context). No when-not or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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