sigma_add_deployment_documents

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a mutating operation that is not destructive. The description adds no further context: it does not state whether this appends to existing documents, replaces them, or has any side effects. With no schema descriptions, the agent is left guessing about actual behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to parse. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 is a mutating operation with two parameters and no parameter documentation. The description does not address what happens to existing deployment documents, whether duplicates are allowed, or any prerequisites. Although an output schema exists (not shown here), the missing behavioral context and parameter guidance leave the tool under-specified for safe use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It uses the term 'workbooks/reports' which vaguely hints at inode_ids, but it never explicitly maps that to the parameter. policy_id is left completely undefined. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('workbooks/reports') and destination ('deployment policy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_create_deployment (which creates the policy) and sigma_list_deployment_documents (which lists documents), so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 usage is implied by the verb and resource: you use this tool when you need to attach workbooks/reports to an existing deployment policy. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives, e.g., whether you need a created policy first or if there is a bulk operation for this.

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