gavaza_breach_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a write side effect ('Log a breach') and an output ('print the 72-hour checklist'), but it does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, error behavior, or permission needs, leaving partial compensation for the missing annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a compact bullet-like list for parameter clarifications. Every sentence contributes and there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the main behavior (logging and printing a checklist). Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. However, it lacks context about what the 72-hour checklist is and any preconditions, which is a minor gap for an add 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description supplements schema by explaining that `description` is 'what happened', `date` uses ISO format and defaults to today, `categories` refers to 'personal information involved', and `risk` is an 'assessment'. This adds real meaning beyond raw types and defaults, though value formats for `risk` and `status` remain unspecified.

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 opens with 'Log a breach in the register and print the 72-hour checklist', which is a specific verb+resource plus an additional outcome. It clearly distinguishes this add operation from the sibling 'gavaza_breach_list' and other list/report tools.

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: the agent can infer that this tool is for logging breaches, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusions.

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