add_data_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the batch behavior (adding one or more data stores) and the return format (confirmation with ID(s)). It also notes that the 'items' parameter enables batch operation, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not detail edge cases like duplicate name handling, but for a create operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with a summary, mode explanations, an args list, and a returns line. However, the Args list largely repeats the schema descriptions, making it longer than necessary. It is not overly verbose, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, a batch mode, and an output schema. The description explains the two modes, the required fields for single-item mode, the batch structure, and the return value. It is sufficiently complete for effective use, though it could mention possible error conditions, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context by distinguishing single-item parameters from the batch 'items' parameter and mentioning the 'ctx' parameter (not in schema), but most of the Args section duplicates schema descriptions. The added value over the schema is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new data store to the architecture' and clarifies it also supports batch operations via the 'items' parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_data_store and delete_data_store, and from add_component/add_connection which target other architecture elements.

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 clear context on when to use single-item mode versus batch mode, with explicit instructions for each. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use update_data_store instead), but the usage context is well-defined and unambiguous.

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