add_aux

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false), but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, or impact on the model. For a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.

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 concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary information, and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested graphical_function), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description adequately states the purpose but does not fully prepare an agent for all parameters or provide behavioral context. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely stating that the tool adds 'a variable (parameter or intermediate calculation)', which is already implied by the name.

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 ('Add') and resource ('auxiliary variable'), and clarifies it as a 'parameter or intermediate calculation'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_flow and add_stock by specifying the variable type.

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 implies usage for adding auxiliary variables but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_variables, update_aux). No exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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