add_hierarchy_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: how the ordinal parameter positions the level (0 = top, omitted = bottom) and that existing levels are renumbered densely. This goes beyond the schema, which only mentions the default position.

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 well-structured sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the primary purpose and then specifies the crucial ordinal behavior without any wasted words.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main operation and the subtle ordinal behavior. It does not describe error cases or prerequisites beyond the same-table constraint, but the schema covers parameter-level details like the levelName default. It is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 most parameters with descriptions (column, ordinal, hierarchy, levelName), but the description adds meaning by noting the column must be on the same table (clarifying the 'table' parameter) and by explaining the renumbering side effect of the 'ordinal' parameter. This complements the 67% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a level') and the target ('an existing hierarchy'), with a source constraint ('from a column on the same table'). This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as remove_hierarchy_level or add_hierarchy.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: extending an existing hierarchy by adding a level backed by a column on the same table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity makes the intended use obvious.

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