openpanel_increment_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions critical constraints (profile existence, numeric type) but fails to describe failure modes (what happens if profile missing?), idempotency, or atomicity guarantees that would be essential for a mutation tool lacking safety 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 three-sentence structure is front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and prerequisites. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is slightly cryptic but brief. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy, though the all-caps 'IMPORTANT' could be considered structural noise.

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?

Adequate for a simple 4-parameter operation, but given zero schema coverage and no output schema, it should explicitly document the 'site' parameter and describe success/failure return behavior. The description covers the minimum viable constraints but leaves operational details undocumented.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'property_name' must be numeric and 'profile_id' refers to an existing user profile. However, it completely omits explanation of the 'site' parameter and only implicitly suggests 'value' is the increment amount, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 specific action ('Increment') and target resource ('numeric property on a user profile'), distinguishing it from general property setters. However, it could explicitly differentiate from sibling 'decrement_property' or 'set_user_properties' beyond just the verb choice.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance ('Profile must exist first (use identify_user)') and constraints ('Property must be numeric'), which effectively signals when to use the tool. It could strengthen this by explicitly mentioning when NOT to use it versus alternatives like set_user_properties for non-incremental updates.

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