ruddur_add_heading_collaborator

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the authentication scope requirement (content.manage) and notes that the server accepts aliases for collaborator fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe effects on existing collaborators, error conditions, or response details, leaving some behavioral gaps beyond what annotations cover.

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 only three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, alias flexibility, and authorization requirement. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the core action, auth requirement, and parameter aliases. However, it lacks details on success/failure behavior, whether adding a collaborator is additive or replacing, and what the response contains. These gaps leave invocation partially under-specified, but the essential information for selecting and calling the tool is present.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters, but the body parameter is generic and only described as 'JSON request body.' The description adds significant meaning by enumerating specific accepted aliases (userId, collaboratorId, permission, access, accessLevel), which clarifies what fields should be sent. This goes beyond the schema's generic body description, earning above-baseline credit.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a collaborator to a Heading.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like update or remove. Additional detail about accepted aliases (userId, collaboratorId, permission, etc.) reinforces its purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the required scope 'content.manage', giving a clear prerequisite for use. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., update for modifying existing collaborators), but the action verb 'add' inherently implies the appropriate context. This provides clear usage context without formal exclusions.

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