mobileci_add_signing

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only implies a mutation via the verb 'Add'. It does not state whether existing signing configuration is overwritten, whether the api_key parameter is a credential sent to a remote service, whether local files are created or modified, or whether network access or a signing service is required. An agent cannot anticipate the side effects of calling this 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words — the verb leads and there is no padding. However, the extreme brevity tips toward under-specification for a domain as complex as code signing, so it cannot receive the top score. Structure is sound; content volume is the issue.

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 sits in a complex domain (mobile CI code signing) with no annotations, no output schema, one undocumented parameter, and close siblings requiring differentiation, yet the entire description is five words. An agent would not know what platform or toolchain this targets, what api_key is for, what files are modified, or what the result looks like. This is grossly insufficient for safe invocation.

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 exactly 50% — only 'directory' has a schema description ('Project directory'), while 'api_key' is entirely undocumented. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, leaving the agent to guess what api_key is for (a signing service credential? an Apple API key?) or whether it is needed alongside 'directory'. With half the parameters unexplained and zero contribution from the description, this is a significant gap.

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 verb and resource — 'Add code signing configuration' — which communicates the basic action of writing signing configuration rather than performing the signing itself. However, it is vague about scope: no platform (iOS vs Android), no target toolchain (Fastlane, Xcode, Gradle), and no indication of what files or systems are affected. It does not differentiate from the close siblings mobileci_setup_fastlane and mobileci_add_deployment.

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 usage guidance is provided — the description never says when to invoke this tool, what prerequisites are needed, or how it compares to alternatives. Given close siblings mobileci_setup_fastlane and mobileci_add_deployment, an agent has no basis for choosing between them. Even an implied workflow or prerequisite would have helped, but there is none.

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