add_individual

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real context beyond that: the write is persisted ('and save') and the tool returns a GEDCOM @I..@ id, which the agent needs to chain further calls. It does not mention permissions, file-selection side effects, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return value and the follow-up routing. No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required (though the id note is a helpful preview). The main gap is the low schema description coverage for a 9-parameter tool, which the description does nothing to fill.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it says nothing about birth/death dates, places, note, or sex. The only semantic addition is the @I..@ id return format, which relates to output rather than inputs.

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 and resource ('Add a new individual and save'), which cleanly separates it from update_individual, add_family, and set_parents. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous from the name plus description.

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 phrase 'link them with add_family / set_parents' gives useful next-step routing, so the agent knows this tool only creates the record and a separate call wires up relationships. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs update_individual guidance or exclusion conditions.

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