a11y_add_aria

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that attributes are added, but does not explain whether existing ARIA attributes are overwritten, whether the full HTML is returned, whether an API key is required, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is thin for a transformation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 is relatively simple and the schema fully documents its parameters, making the description minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it still omits return behavior and fails to route the agent between scan, add, and report workflows.

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% and the parameter descriptions are already informative. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Add appropriate ARIA attributes') with a clear resource ('HTML elements') and outcome ('improve accessibility'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like a11y_scan_html (detection) and a11y_generate_report (reporting).

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'Add' and the accessibility focus, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this over the a11y scan/report siblings or whether it should follow a scan. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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