add_family

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that FAMS/FAMC back-links are written, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations, but it does not describe prerequisites, permissions, or side effects on existing records in depth.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the back-link behavior without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter write tool with 83% of parameters undocumented and no explicit usage guidance, the description is too thin. It notes back-link writes and the family record format, but lacks prerequisites, ID expectations, and when-to-use alternatives among siblings like add_child or set_parents.

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 only 17% (just the 'file' parameter). The description maps vaguely to wife_id, husband_id, and child_ids by saying 'linking spouses and/or children', but it offers no ID format details and completely omits marriage_date and marriage_place, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Create'), resource ('family'), and scope ('linking spouses and/or children'), plus the GEDCOM record format (@F..@). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_child or set_parents, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies that the tool is for creating a family unit with spouses and/or children, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as add_child or set_parents. An agent must infer usage from the action alone.

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