auth_add_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attach' implies a state-changing operation, but the description does not explain side effects, whether the token replaces or complements existing ones, authorization requirements, failure modes, or persistence. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The key action and object are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it achieves this by omitting potentially useful context.

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-changing auth operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot confidently determine the role of optional parameters, the effect on the session, or the expected return value. Important context is left to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely identifies library_token and session_token, but says nothing about the optional repo_id and library_name parameters, which are non-obvious without further explanation. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 states a specific action ('attach') and a clear resource ('another library token' to 'a session'). It is understandable on its own and distinguishable from siblings like auth_remove_library or auth_revoke, though auth_register_library has some conceptual overlap.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auth_register_library, auth_login, or auth_reauth. It implies an existing session but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the intended scenario.

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