documents_add_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes and indexes for semantic retrieval, which is useful behavioral context. But it omits other relevant details like return value, deduplication behavior, or any permissions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, with no redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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 create operation with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. However, with no output schema and no mention of return behavior, a small gap remains, but not significant enough to lower the score further.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though it hints at expected content types (spec, architecture guide) relevant to the category field.

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 uses specific verbs 'Store and index' and identifies the resource as 'a project document, spec, or architecture guide', with a clear purpose ('for semantic retrieval'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like documents_search_documents and documents_list_documents by focusing on the add action.

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 implies use when you want a document to be stored and semantically retrievable, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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