scheduling_add_line_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that pricing uses cents, which is already in the schema. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens upon success/failure.

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 concise (2 sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It could be more informative without being verbose, but it is appropriately brief given the schema covers parameter details.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the process, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as the 'cents' detail is already documented in the schema descriptions for retail_cents and cost_cents.

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 line item to a schedule, with a specific verb (Add) and resource (line item) and target (schedule). It is distinguishable from sibling tools that operate on other entities (e.g., tickets_add_line_item, estimates_add_line_item).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as scheduling_update_line_item or scheduling_remove_line_item. The context of sibling names implies usage, but the description itself lacks usage context.

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