Add Pool Items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers unusually rich behavior detail: deduplication of blank lines and repeats, 200-character item limit with skipped items counted, pre-existing pool items counted rather than re-added, batching of 100 per send, and a 1000-item pool cap. It omits permissions/auth requirements and what is returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then input mechanism, then edge-case behavior. The final sentence is somewhat compressed ('Sent 100 at a time; a pool holds up to 1000 unused items') but every clause carries information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers normalization rules, error-adjacent edge cases, batching, and capacity limits. Missing details are secondary: required permissions and whether partial successes are reported back.

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 67%; `items` carries no schema description, and the description compensates by defining it as the list to add and explaining the either-or relationship with `file` plus the one-item-per-line file convention. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not echo the code pattern or size limits that the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add items ... to a Gated link's pool') and immediately clarifies the domain concept ('each delivered order takes one'), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_pool_stats and list_links.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that either `items` or `file` must be supplied and explains the file format ('a text file, one item per line'), which resolves the main decision the caller faces. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or point to an alternative for bulk/other operations.

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