add_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the SSRF protection blocking localhost/private IPs by default and the availability of allow_local to bypass it for testing. This is important safety behavior.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the core action and a critical behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters) and that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description adequately covers the main aspects: purpose, key parameters, and security context. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no mention of validation or duplicate handling), but overall it is sufficient.

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 high (86%), but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the security implications of the url parameter and the purpose of allow_local. This contextual information aids correct parameter selection.

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 CalDAV account, specifying the action ('Add'), resource ('new CalDAV account'), and system ('Chronos'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_accounts, remove_account, and test_account.

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?

While not explicitly stating when to use vs alternatives, the description provides context on SSRF protection and the allow_local parameter for development/testing. This implies typical usage scenarios but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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