estate_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: packages persist with ecosystem, name, version and first-seen date, and format is auto-detected. It omits what happens on duplicate/re-added packages (merge vs. overwrite), whether the call is idempotent, and what occurs on an unrecognized or malformed file — notable gaps for a write/persist operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the supported formats and the persistence rationale, then a short Args block. Nearly every sentence carries information; only the Args repetition of the parameter names is mildly redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers input formats, persistence semantics, and two of three parameters. Remaining shortfalls are the undocumented ctx parameter and the absence of any error/duplicate-handling behavior, which matters given no annotations describe the write side effects.

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 documents two of the three parameters usefully — source_text is the file contents and source_name is an optional original filename that "helps format detection" — which adds real meaning. But the third parameter, ctx, is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a genuine gap.

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 and resource ("Add packages to your Watchtower estate") and enumerates accepted input formats (CycloneDX JSON, SPDX JSON, requirements.txt, package-lock.json, go.mod). It implicitly separates the ingest step from the scanning siblings (estate_scan, scan_dependencies) by noting persistence enables later diffs, but never names those siblings 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 sentence about persistent storage "so later scans can diff your exposure over time" implies this tool is a prerequisite/ingest step before estate_scan or watch_diff, which is useful workflow guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative despite many overlapping siblings like scan_dependencies and scan_container_packages.

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