gitchanger_add

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether it writes to a config file, whether IDs must be unique, what happens on duplicate IDs, or that optional SSH/transport/token fields are stored. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words or filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain persistence, validation, and error behavior. As written, an agent knows only that something is added and nothing about consequences or return value, which is insufficient for a config-mutating tool.

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 every parameter including id, key, alias, transport, and signing_key is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g., how alias relates to key or host), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a new Git profile'), which is unambiguous about what the tool creates. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools such as gitchanger_switch or gitchanger_set_default, which a user might confuse with profile creation/setup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives: nothing about whether the profile must not already exist, what to do for an existing profile, or which sibling handles switching/defaults afterward. The sentence simply restates the operation with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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