add_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter context, but does not disclose potential side effects, constraints (e.g., duplicate names), error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a mutating tool, and the description offers no warning or extra behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key context. There is no wasted information or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 only two parameters and no nested objects, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it is missing useful context such as preconditions or side effects. For a simple add operation, the description is minimally viable but not thorough.

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 provides parameter names and types but no descriptions. The description adds the word 'initial' to base salary, clarifying that it's the starting salary, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates for one parameter but not fully.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('a new person to the budget database'), and also mentions the initial base salary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_expense and initialize_new_month, which deal with different entities/actions.

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 clear usage: it is the tool for adding a person to the budget database. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, the context of the sibling tools makes the intended use obvious. It gives clear context without excluding any specific scenarios.

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