add_faq

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: false, which already signals this is non-destructive. The description reinforces this by saying 'Add a new FAQ' but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it appends to the end, handles duplicates, or requires authentication). It does not contradict the annotation, but it also doesn't go beyond it.

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 waste. It conveys the action and target immediately.

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 simple create operation with 3 parameters all described in the schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It does not explain the return value, but with no output schema and low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for question, answer, and display_order. The description mentions 'question + answer' but does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('FAQ'), and the target ('website FAQ page'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling update_faq and remove_faq tools, which are for modifying and deleting.

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 verb 'Add' clearly implies creation rather than update or removal, and the presence of update_faq and remove_faq siblings makes the intent obvious. However, it does not explicitly state 'use update_faq for existing entries' or mention any conditions for when not to use this tool.

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