AddTransportObject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely non-obvious trait: in batch mode the call is recorded under the next number and returns empty content, read later via a numbered answer. However, it omits failure behavior (duplicate object already in task, released/non-modifiable transport), permission requirements, and what the non-batch answer contains.

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 sentences, action stated first with zero filler. The second sentence is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('Recordable', 'recorded under the next number'), but every clause conveys real information rather than restating the name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and batch semantics but leaves the normal (non-batch) return shape, error conditions, and transport-state preconditions unexplained. It is workable but incomplete for a write operation whose safety profile is otherwise undocumented.

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%, so all five parameters (including pgmid and detail enum) are already documented in the schema. The description only ties the three required parameters to the action and adds the 'existing' qualifier on object_name/object_type; it contributes no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource — adding an existing object (by name and type) into a named transport task — and even states the effect ('so it travels with the task's request'). It doesn't name a sibling (e.g., RemoveTransportObject, MoveTransportObjects) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 existing object' implies the object must already exist rather than be created here, and the batch-mode sentence implies usage inside BatchBegin/BatchEnd. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative tools for moving or removing objects, and no stated prerequisites (task must exist, must be modifiable/unreleased).

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