Create Testimonial

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

Annotations are all false and provide little behavioral context, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the write nature ('Add') and explains behavioral implications of the two display modes (featured vs. review). It does not disclose defaults for fields like published or handling of duplicate slugs, but the mode guidance goes beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, with the primary action first, then required fields, then the two use cases. Every word adds value; no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow (featured vs. review) but omits guidance for video, ordering, and publication state. It is sufficient for basic use but not complete for all possible invocations. Advanced agents would need to inspect the schema or guess for optional fields.

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 45%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify required parameters (slug, name, quote) and explains the semantic difference between rating and result/featured, which is valuable. However, it ignores many optional parameters (order, detail, videoId, videoType, published) that lack schema descriptions, leaving those semantics unclear.

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 opens with 'Add a testimonial', a specific verb and resource that clearly indicates creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_testimonial and delete_testimonial by defining this as the create operation. The additional required-field list and two modes further clarify its purpose.

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 explicit conditional guidance: set result and featured: true for featured career-outcome cards, or set rating (1-5) for short community reviews. It also lists required fields. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_testimonial for modifying existing testimonials, leaving a small gap in distinguishing when to create versus update.

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