Add operator to package

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent it's a mutation but little else. The description adds meaningful behavior: automatic generation of test scaffolds, support for nested namespaces, and post-install availability as package_id::operator_name. It doesn't cover overwrite semantics or error conditions, but goes beyond annotation basics.

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 well-structured: an opening statement, a concise bullet list of use cases, and a closing note on availability. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the operation and its outcomes (operator added, test scaffold, post-install usage). It doesn't mention return values or error cases, but for an 'add' operation this is adequate and matches the complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds context around 'name' (nested namespace examples) and references test scaffold generation for 'no_tests', but largely reinforces what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Add a user-defined operator (UDO) to a package.' It also lists concrete use cases (custom TQL operators, nested namespaces, parsers/transformations/OCSF mappings, test scaffold generation), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like make_parser or make_ocsf_mapping.

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 'Use this tool to' bullet list provides explicit context for when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the use cases are clear and the sibling list helps. Not quite a 5 because exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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