add_sticker_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Install', implying a write operation, but does not mention authentication needs, idempotency, side effects, or what happens if the pack is already installed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, then usage flow. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple with one parameter, schema covers it well, and no output schema. The description covers the core use case but lacks prerequisites (e.g., authentication) and error handling. It is minimally adequate.

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% (the parameter 'uri' is described in the schema with the same format). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the format. Baseline is 3 as per guidelines.

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 verb 'Install' and the resource 'Signal sticker pack' from a signal.art URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'upload_sticker_pack' and 'list_sticker_packs' by specifying the action of installation.

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 explains the sequential workflow: install, then browse with list_sticker_packs, then send with send_sticker/send_group_sticker. It provides the URI format requirement. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the context is clear.

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