add_plate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the operation mutates project state (it clearly does), whether existing plates are unaffected, where 'the end' is in ordering, and whether the new plate inherits settings from the current plate. 'At the end' is the only behavioral detail offered.

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 redundant padding, which is structurally fine, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned through precise wording.

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 state-mutating project operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undescribed parameter, the description is far from sufficient—it doesn't say what is returned, whether the added plate becomes the active/selected plate, or how failures are surfaced.

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 0% for the single optional 'name' parameter, and the description never mentions that a name can be supplied or what happens when it is omitted (the schema default is an empty string). The one parameter is effectively undocumented across both structured and unstructured fields.

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 verb and resource are identifiable ('Add ... plate'), but the description is thin: it never says this creates a new, empty build plate appended to the project, nor how that differs from siblings like 'rename_plate', 'set_plate_settings', or 'remove_plate'. An agent can guess the effect, but the definition doesn't distinguish it explicitly from other plate-scoped tools.

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 add a plate versus using an existing one, no mention of any alternative tool, and no prerequisites (e.g., does the project need to be open?). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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