Add a robot to the team list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds practical context about locating the robot's IP, but says nothing about persistence of the addition, whether it overwrites an existing entry, or required connectivity state.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical hint; nothing is wasted. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for the action.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage the unmentioned team parameter and the absence of any note on duplicates or overwrite behavior leave a real gap for a state-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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It successfully maps 'player name' to name and 'IP address' to host, but the third parameter, team (blue/orange enum with null default), is never mentioned, leaving it undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (a robot on the team list), and ties it to the two identifying inputs. It is distinguishable from connect_robot or team_list by the 'team list' scope, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 this applies and even tells the agent where to obtain the required host value (robot's Settings → Radio screen, or the control panel's Network menu). It stops short of stating when not to use it versus connect_robot/select_player.

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