add_perspective

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical precondition (guidance must be requested) and the consequence of not meeting it (tool will fail), which is significant. It does not mention other side effects, but the most important behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second stating the necessary precondition. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly scannable.

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 tool is part of a multi-step process, and the description effectively situates it (after request_thinking_guidance) while noting the failure mode. Since there is no output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it could provide slightly more context about what constitutes a valid analysis; however, the schema parameter descriptions likely cover that.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including a descriptive enum for 'perspective'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce that the operation is tied to a specific perspective and depends on prior guidance, which is a workflow nuance rather than parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a specific Six Thinking Hats perspective analysis') within a defined workspace. It distinguishes this tool from sibling request tools by indicating it is the follow-up action after requesting guidance, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly specifies the prerequisite (calling request_thinking_guidance) and the failure behavior if that is not done, providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the relevant alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role in the workflow.

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