add_topic

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses idempotent behavior ('adding an existing topic does not error') and format constraints for topic name, which are not fully captured by schema alone (schema has pattern but description explains reasoning).

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, zero waste. The core action, idempotency, format rule, and usage alternative are front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 no output schema and low complexity (3 params, 1 required), description covers all necessary context: what it does, side effects, constraints, and relationship to siblings.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining idempotency implication for the topic parameter and the practical reason for preferring 'replace_topics' over multiple calls.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'topic to a repository by name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_topics' and 'remove_topic' by specifying the scope (one topic) and the preferred alternative for multiple topics.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To add several topics at once or to set the exact desired set, prefer replace_topics.' Also mentions idempotency, which informs safe repeated usage.

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