add_completion_path

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning it is a write operation, but the description adds no further behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it automatically reorder stages?), required permissions, or what exactly 'adding' entails beyond creating a record.

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 overly concise (4 words). While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and siblings.

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?

With no output schema and a minimal description, the tool lacks context about the completion path system, how stages relate to each other, and what happens after adding a stage. It is incomplete for a mutation tool with required parameters.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify parameter relationships beyond what is in the schema.

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 states the action ('add') and the resource ('completion path stage'), but it is extremely brief and does not clarify what a completion path stage is or how it differs from similar entities like flows or milestones. It is minimally sufficient but lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_flow, add_milestone, update_completion_path). There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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