add_variation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the runtime behavior (column navigates through relationship to default hierarchy) and the role of isDefault, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or failure scenarios.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaning. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 description covers the core concept and parameter roles, but without annotations or an output schema it leaves gaps such as expected return values, prerequisites (e.g., date table requirement), and error conditions. It's adequate but not exhaustive for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 provides descriptions for most parameters (83% coverage), and the description adds context by explaining how relationship and defaultHierarchy work together in the navigation behavior. It also reinforces the meaning of isDefault. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter definitions.

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 tool adds a date-navigation Variation to a column, explaining the functional effect (navigating through a named relationship to a default hierarchy on a related date table). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like delete_variation and list_variations.

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 explains what the tool does and implies it should be used when adding a variation to a column, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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