whodb_platform_add_ontology_records

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the default preview/confirmation-token flow with the confirm gate, the retry-safety semantics of idempotency_key, and the fact that workspace targeting does not mutate session defaults.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct instruction (shape of rows, idempotency, confirm gate, workspace override).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining that the default mode returns a confirmation token, plus the idempotency and targeting behavior. Covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, though it omits any hint on batch-size limits or partial-failure behavior.

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 largely restates the schema ('rows are plain objects keyed by ontology property', idempotency_key avoids double inserts) and only adds the minor nuance that workspace is per-call without changing defaults, which the schema already states.

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 many rows to a hosted ontology') and scopes it with 'in one call', which cleanly separates it from the singular sibling whodb_platform_add_ontology_record. An agent can tell which tool to reach for without opening either schema.

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 conditional guidance on when to pass idempotency_key and gates the follow-up call ('do not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves the preview'). It implies bulk use via 'many rows ... in one call' but never explicitly names the single-row sibling as the alternative, so selection guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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