whodb_platform_add_ontology_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the two-step preview/confirmation-token flow and the rule that confirm is gated on user approval, which is real operational context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the confirmation workflow and workspace targeting. No filler, though the workspace sentence overlaps material the schema already states.

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 mutating tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, the description fills the key gaps: the preview/confirm gate and default-vs-per-call targeting. The unmentioned update_columns parameter is adequately explained by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, including the workspace sub-object and its default-semantics notes, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's restatement that values are keyed by property and that workspace targets per-call without changing defaults mostly echoes structured data, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add one row to a hosted ontology backing table.' Clear enough for an agent to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling whodb_platform_add_ontology_records (bulk-add), leaving that distinction to the tool name alone.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: default mode returns a confirmation token and confirm must not be called until the user approves the preview, plus the condition for per-call workspace targeting. It does not name the singular-vs-bulk alternative explicitly, so a routing 5 is not warranted.

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