build_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important non-obvious behaviors: same-category existing parts are replaced (destructive) and compatibility is automatically checked when 2 or more parts are involved. It doesn't mention return values or error behavior, but the key side effects are clearly surfaced.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then the replacement rule, then the compatibility behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-part mutation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the operation and its key side effects. It omits return-value details and build-existence assumptions, but given no output schema and available sibling tools like build_status, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for productId, category, name, and price. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Adds Danawa parts to the build' (빌드에 다나와 부품을 추가합니다). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying that same-category parts are replaced and compatibility is checked, which separates it from read/search tools and build_remove.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when adding a part to a build. The note about automatic compatibility checking for 2+ parts hints at when build_check_compatibility may be redundant, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or reference to alternatives such as build_remove or build_check_compatibility.

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